Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website
-
You are an entity currently being in existence. Your consciousness belongs to your living body, part of your functionality of being human, which when you die your body no longer carries the consciousness anymore. Your "I" is simply a process, that's why you are unable find any where in the body "I".Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Words are not just a platform to convey ideas, they are also the means by which we communicate truths, real truths. If words cannot communicate truth, then it also means they cannot communicate ultimate truths, and any distinction between so-called conventional and ultimate truths becomes incoherent and meaningless. Language is more than just a convenient way of relating objective and subjective, it really communicates what is has happened, is happening, or perhaps what will happen. You said "I" is a finger pointing to an occurrence, but what occurred? And who is the "one" that moves on? Again I hope you see the problem with denying the existence of self. I know it may seem that I am actually challenging a central tenet of Buddhism, but I hope I am not causing offense to you or any Buddhist here, anymore than I would be offended that atheists challenge me on the existence of God issue.
-
Words communication ideas, theories and concept, may either be accurrate and truth, or simply false. Truths must abide consistently with phenomena.
-
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.Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If I may borrow the words used here before, I would deem this question to be those that are to be set aside and categorised under idle speculation. Why? Because it assumes wrongly that self is nothing but matter. It is not. It is like trying to ask which part of you is jealous when you see your girlfriend talking to another guy. The person consists of both the material and the immaterial. If the person is dead you call it a corpse, the word implying the loss of something inherent that makes a living person alive. It is the same question like asking who caused God? But by definition an eternal God has no beginning and thus begs no cause. So the question is mistaken and meaningless to begin with, unless one assumes a wrong view of God as one that has a beginning. But that's not the view of the God spoken of in the Bible.
-
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.
-
By the way I am not offended by you challenging any the tenets of Buddhism. If it serves as a good practice to see if there is any false views I may be holding that my peers here may correct me. The less "I" view I have, the less there is any negative emotions to arise. It makes more mindful that I may have is the lack of wisdom and skilful means to articulate more effectively. You have been cordial and try to engage with anyone in a being factual as you can! For that I thank you!
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
By the way I am not offended by you challenging any the tenets of Buddhism. If it serves as a good practice to see if there is any false views I may be holding that my peers here may correct me.
The less “I” view I have, the less there is any negative emotions to arise.
It makes more mindful that I may have is the lack of wisdom and skilful means to articulate more effectively.
You have been cordial and try to engage with anyone in a being factual as you can! For that I thank you!I still feel think the discussion is helpful only if some buddhist concepts are misinterpreted... but pointless to debate the fundamental difference about buddhism and christianity...
buddhists doesn't believe in a single ultimate source.. or a single creator story.. that may upset other people who hold these beliefs...
hence i always feel it's good to understand each other's differences... but meaningless to debate the fundamental difference of all religions.
-
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."
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You have misunderstood. It is not about pushing the blame on some animal or on Jesus. It is about atonement for sin to escape the wrath of a holy God who must judge sin. Animal sacrifices in the OT was a temporary provision for atoning for sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. That blood must be shed reflects the seriousness of sin. But Christ, being the perfect sinless Son of God, died once and for all. He laid down His life willingly for us. You may not like this but I would argue that one's likes or dislikes does not negate a truth. Christians are to avoid sinning but when they do fall into sin, they can seek forgiveness in Christ's finished work on the cross. No more animal sacrifices, and neither does Christ need to die again.
FYI, Jesus did not lay down his life for us willingly.
First, he was praying to his old man that if his fate of being sacrifice can be averted.Second, he asked his old man why he was abandoned at the cross.
FYI, I have not misunderstood.
Now if you are going to be sacrificed for my benefit, would you be willing to do so? i ask you.
And if i benefit from your loss, would i be considered righteous?
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
I still feel think the discussion is helpful only if some buddhist concepts are misinterpreted... but pointless to debate the fundamental difference about buddhism and christianity...
buddhists doesn't believe in a single ultimate source.. or a single creator story.. that may upset other people who hold these beliefs...
hence i always feel it's good to understand each other's differences... but meaningless to debate the fundamental difference of all religions.
Indeed.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
but do you agree that all the things in the universe, inculding u and me are made up of atoms, molecules, to mere energy by science? that's sort of Impersonality in Buddhism already in laymen term.
/\
I think that's where the danger of reductionism (we are nothing but atoms etc) or deconstructionism (we are made up of parts) lies, it removes personhood. Take a car for example, it is not the parts that make the car. You can have a junkyard full of parts but no car. You have the materials to make the car, but you can still have no car. What is the difference? It is the application of intelligence, information, or MIND if you like.
Likewise, breaking down the human being into little parts (sounds gross!) only prove the point of what we are made up of, but it does not mean we are nothing but such things or just the sum of those things. Like I mentioned before, a corpse has everything you need but it is just not alive. When God created Adam from the dust of the earth (know you know why humans sometimes treat each other like dirt! LOL!) Adam was not a corpse since he was never alive to begin with. But God "breathed" life into Adam and he became a nephesh chayah, a living soul/person. It is the very image of God in which we are created that makes us special. We are not re-arranged pondscum.
-
Originally posted by kuji-in:
FYI, Jesus did not lay down his life for us willingly.
First, he was praying to his old man that if his fate of being sacrifice can be averted.Second, he asked his old man why he was abandoned at the cross.
FYI, I have not misunderstood.
Now if you are going to be sacrificed for my benefit, would you be willing to do so? i ask you.
And if i benefit from your loss, would i be considered righteous?
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!
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
I still feel think the discussion is helpful only if some buddhist concepts are misinterpreted... but pointless to debate the fundamental difference about buddhism and christianity...
buddhists doesn't believe in a single ultimate source.. or a single creator story.. that may upset other people who hold these beliefs...
hence i always feel it's good to understand each other's differences... but meaningless to debate the fundamental difference of all religions.
I don't think it is meaningless at all. Debating, not mere rhetoric or polemic, will help us to see how robust our beliefs are and whether it can withstand examination. I think the way we debate is just as important as what we debate. We should let the debate or rather, discussion, be cordial and maintain harmony. We judge (in the sense of trying to discern right from wrong, truth from error) views, and not judge the person holding the views. Thus we refrain from personal attack or character assassination.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
You are an entity currently being in existence. Your consciousness belongs to your living body, part of your functionality of being human, which when you die your body no longer carries the consciousness anymore. Your "I" is simply a process, that's why you are unable find any where in the body "I".
Words communication ideas, theories and concept, may either be accurrate and truth, or simply false. Truths must abide consistently with phenomena.
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.
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.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.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1. The world is illusory in the sense that it is empty of inherent existence.
3. You need to re-read my statement:
That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.4. Being killed by a car is conventional efficacy of cause and effect. But it does not mean however that car has substantial core or existence ultimately. Everything being dependently originated is empty ultimately. Empty does not mean non-existing but empty of a substantial core, unchanging, independent existence.
2. Redness is an experience of vision in human kind. You cannot speak of redness apart from vision. Redness is a dependently originated phenomena, neither existing in mind nor in outer objects, for both mind and outer objects are conventions for dependently originated activities that are empty and cannot be pinned down as a substantial entity.
Anyway there is an interesting article by Kyle:http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/03/sun-that-never-sets.html
As a quick disclaimer: Faculties that are named and used in making the descriptions and examinations i'm writing about are only temporary and will be discarded at a later point. Something said at one point may be contradicted and negated later on in reference to titles such as, mind, sense-fields, awareness, consciousness, subject, object etc....1. Agreed (albeit reluctantly) insofar as you are saying that the universe is a contingent "entity" though I would not call it illusory or empty or lack inherent existence as such terms can give wrong impression and you need to qualify them always.
2. Reality is simply what is, it should not be treated as an entity or spoken as if it is. Actually I don't think people hae a problem with this at all.
3. If someone is killed by a car, then that is the reality and the truth, regardless of whether you see it as conventional or ultimate. Again the issue of the car being a contingent thing is not in dispute, though the use of the word "empty" IMO is most unfortunate.
4. A blind person has nothing to see as he cannot see at all. So yes, colour and vision goes hand in hand though I would not go to the extent of saying that vision = color. Our eyes are designed and created (by God) for the purpose of seeing. And a properly working eye with brain functions will result in a seeing of colour for human beings.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think that's where the danger of reductionism (we are nothing but atoms etc) or deconstructionism (we are made up of parts) lies, it removes personhood. Take a car for example, it is not the parts that make the car. You can have a junkyard full of parts but no car. You have the materials to make the car, but you can still have no car. What is the difference? It is the application of intelligence, information, or MIND if you like.
yea, ppl very easy misunderstood Impersonality/Emptiness to be to Nothingness, BUTEmptiness does not refer to either physical or mental nothingness—it is the truth of the infinite open possibilities of "everything-ness".It is change itself, with no fixed nature other than change. Emptiness can be likened to the vast sky that includes and allows the coming and going of phenomena like the clouds and birds.It is not different or separate from phenomena.The potentialities of Emptiness is more than what the unenlightened perceive. It is because of Emptiness that everything, including ourselves,can continually change for the better. Anything can transform into something else when the right combination of causes and conditions is present.Similarly, anyone can become enlightened if one cultivates spiritually. Emptiness is thus a teaching full of hope.
so on the contrary,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44143843/Be-A-Lamp-Upon-Yourself
Benefits of realising emptiness
Our ignorance sees the illusory as being "too real". We see the changing as unchanging and become attached to the unsubstantial. Not seeing the unreality of self creates suffering centring around this false sense of self. There is no hint of a fixed self in anything physical or mental. When self is realised to be empty, all "self-created" problems disappear. All is seen just as it is in its naked reality.Realising Emptiness brings unlimited ease and happiness as one becomes free of the burden of attachment. Realising Emptiness is to attain the wisdom of selflessness—to see the non-self of everything. The functioning of selfessness is the opposite of selfishness—it is pure compassion.Thus, true wisdom is compassionate and true compassion is wise—they are interdependently linked. These twin peaks of spiritual cultivation are perfected in Enlightenment.
As we familiarise ourselves with Emptiness, we gradually open our minds and free ourselves from the bonds of ignorance. In time, this eliminates delusion, anger, attachment, pride, jealousy and other disturbing attitudes. Ceasing destructive actions motivated by them, realising Emptiness brings True Happiness.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
yea, ppl very easy misunderstood Impersonality/Emptiness to be to Nothingness, BUTEmptiness does not refer to either physical or mental nothingness—it is the truth of the infinite open possibilities of "everything-ness".It is change itself, with no fixed nature other than change. Emptiness can be likened to the vast sky that includes and allows the coming and going of phenomena like the clouds and birds.It is not different or separate from phenomena.The potentialities of Emptiness is more than what the unenlightened perceive. It is because of Emptiness that everything, including ourselves,can continually change for the better. Anything can transform into something else when the right combination of causes and conditions is present.Similarly, anyone can become enlightened if one cultivates spiritually. Emptiness is thus a teaching full of hope.
so on the contrary,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44143843/Be-A-Lamp-Upon-Yourself
Benefits of realising emptiness
Our ignorance sees the illusory as being "too real". We see the changing as unchanging and become attached to the unsubstantial. Not seeing the unreality of self creates suffering centring around this false sense of self. There is no hint of a fixed self in anything physical or mental. When self is realised to be empty, all "self-created" problems disappear. All is seen just as it is in its naked reality.Realising Emptiness brings unlimited ease and happiness as one becomes free of the burden of attachment. Realising Emptiness is to attain the wisdom of selflessness—to see the non-self of everything. The functioning of selfessness is the opposite of selfishness—it is pure compassion.Thus, true wisdom is compassionate and true compassion is wise—they are interdependently linked. These twin peaks of spiritual cultivation are perfected in Enlightenment.
As we familiarise ourselves with Emptiness, we gradually open our minds and free ourselves from the bonds of ignorance. In time, this eliminates delusion, anger, attachment, pride, jealousy andother disturbing attitudes. Ceasing destructive actions motivated by them, realising Emptiness brings True Happiness.
/\
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. He is always God and has alway been. He is the ground of all that exists, and nothing exists apart from Him. He is the I AM. Buddhism sees everyone as "I am" (if I am not wrong) whereas in Christianity only God is the I AM.
-
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. He is always God and has alway been. He is the ground of all that exists, and nothing exists apart from Him. He is the I AM. Buddhism sees everyone as "I am" (if I am not wrong) whereas in Christianity only God is the I AM.
No... Buddhism does not teach I AM. It goes one step further into anatta and emptiness but it doesn't mean there should be a strict hierarchy of insights. In Thusness 7 stages of enlightenment only Stage 5 onwards are considered 'enlightened' in the Buddhist tradition. In Hinduism and other mystical traditions, they usually talk about stage 1 to 4 realization.
But I AM realization is common even among Buddhists. It depends. Buddhist may be aware of that I AM Presence, does not deny it, but our view is non-dual and non-inherent.
Anyway, those mystical religions of the I AM realization never say everyone is I AM as if there are many individual I AMs. They say that there is only one I AM that is the fundamental ground of Being and that one I AM is giving life to everyone. Everyone has a common source. That one I AM is doing you, shining light (consciousness; life) through your eyes, breathing life. But when the individual self has dissolved, there is only that I AM left, there is no feeling of separation and this is called mystical union in Christianity. But it does not mean the individual self is God.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No... Buddhism does not teach I AM. It goes one step further into anatta and emptiness but it doesn't mean there should be a strict hierarchy of insights. In Thusness 7 stages of enlightenment only Stage 5 onwards are considered 'enlightened' in the Buddhist tradition. In Hinduism and other mystical traditions, they usually talk about stage 1 to 4 realization.
But I AM realization is common even among Buddhists. It depends. Buddhist may be aware of that I AM Presence, does not deny it, but our view is non-dual and non-inherent.
Anyway, those mystical religions of the I AM realization never say everyone is I AM as if there are many individual I AMs. They say that there is only one I AM that is the fundamental ground of Being and that one I AM is giving life to everyone. Everyone has a common source. That one I AM is doing you, shining light (consciousness; life) through your eyes, breathing life. But when the individual self has dissolved, there is only that I AM left, there is no feeling of separation and this is called mystical union in Christianity. But it does not mean the individual self is God.
Sorry, but can you clarify further what is this I AMness realisation in Buddhism is all about? What is I AM Presence?
BTW, as far as I know, Christianity has nothing like the mystical union you are referring to. There is this abiding in Christ, or Christ living in us. But it is not a union of natures. The Creator and the creation are still distinct and separate.
-
Some intro site to mysticism: http://www.frimmin.com/faith/mysticismintro.php
The realization of all-pervading Presence/I AM is described as what Thusness wrote in 2006:
This is an interesting topic and since it is allowed to discuss more about God in a Buddhism forum, I would like to talk a little more about the experience of 'AMness" in all things.
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”.
There is also the sense of being lived when impersonality matures: no longer you who lives, but it is the divinity that works through you. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Some intro site to mysticism: http://www.frimmin.com/faith/mysticismintro.php
I AM realization is described as what Thusness wrote in 2006:
This is an interesting topic and since it is allowed to discuss more about God in a Buddhism forum, I would like to talk a little more about the experience of 'AMness" in all things.
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”.
There is also the sense of being lived when impersonality matures: no longer you who lives, but it is the divinity that works through you.Now I am confused, sorry!
I thought Buddhism is not about nothingness? (pardon the play on words) Emptiness is not nothingness was what I think I heard from some others here.
So we all dissolve into this I AMness which is called God?
And this "God" is not an entity but some kind of ethereal presence that permeates everything? Now it sounds like pantheism, if it is not monism.
Clarifications?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Now I am confused, sorry!
I thought Buddhism is not about nothingness? (pardon the play on words) Emptiness is not nothingness was what I think I heard from some others here.
So we all dissolve into this I AMness which is called God?
And this "God" is not an entity but some kind of ethereal presence that permeates everything? Now it sounds like pantheism, if it is not monism.
Clarifications?
Just look from the perspective of realization. The original teachings of Buddha did not stress too much about it, but nonetheless it cannot be denied that there is such a realization.
We stress more on the realization of anatta and emptiness that liberates self view and suffering.
However it does not mean anatta and emptiness is a dead nothingness. There is a total intelligence, total vitality and total clarity of pure consciousness. The Buddha also talks about a "luminous mind" that is merely temporarily obscured from our view by adventitious defilements (such as our attachment to 'self'). However because our view of anatta and emptiness is nonsubstantialist, ultimately Buddhism is not to be labelled as a kind of pantheism since we are careful to be free of any kind of substantialist view. Our Buddha Nature is known as the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. One must neither skew towards emptiness or to luminosity. We say that Hinduism skews towards luminosity, and certain teachings that preach emptiness intellectually might be skewing towards emptiness. The luminous presence is very important but the moment we form an image or concept about it and grasp after it, we have missed its nature, we have 'defiled' it with our notions so we have to cleanse it with the truth of anatta and emptiness.
Also, for example the luminous factor is also spoken in a Dzogchen tantra (not by Buddha though, a later text expounded in the Tibetan tradition) 'the all creating king':
"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...
"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157).
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Just look from the perspective of realization. The original teachings of Buddha did not stress too much about it, but nonetheless it cannot be denied that there is such a realization.
We stress more on the realization of anatta and emptiness that liberates self view and suffering.
However it does not mean anatta and emptiness is a dead nothingness. The Buddha also talks about a "luminous mind" that is merely temporarily obscured from our view by adventitious defilements (such as our attachment to 'self'). However because our view of anatta and emptiness is nonsubstantialist, ultimately Buddhism is not to be labelled as a kind of pantheism. Our Buddha Nature is known as the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. One must neither skew towards emptiness or to luminosity. We say that Hinduism skews towards luminosity, and certain teachings that preach emptiness intellectually might be skewing towards emptiness. The luminous presence is very important but the moment we form an image or concept about it and grasp after it, we have missed its nature, we have 'defiled' it with our notions so we have to cleanse it with the truth of anatta and emptiness.
Also, for example the luminous factor is also spoken in a Dzogchen tantra (not by Buddha though, a later text expounded in the Tibetan tradition) 'the all creating king':"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...
"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157).
More clarifications please.
1. So everyone of "us" is actually I AMness but man just don't know it? Or man knows it on an intellectual level but not in a realisation level?
2. Why would the "supreme source" refers to "I"? Why does it speaks as if it is a Person? Is this supreme source an impersonal force or a personal being?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
More clarifications please.
1. So everyone of "us" is actually I AMness but man just don't know it? Or man knows it on an intellectual level but not in a realisation level?
2. Why would the "supreme source" refers to "I"? Why does it speaks as if it is a Person? Is this supreme source an impersonal force or a personal being?
1. Some people don't know it, some people know it intellectually, few people realized it.
2. If you are not attached to personality, you can become a vehicle for the expression of Spirit. It is not a personal self. -
"Reading the Kunjed Gyalpo you will often come across the word "I". "I am the nature of all phenomena," "I am the root of existence," and so on. This "I" is your true state: the primordial Buddha, the supreme source of manifestation. Try to understand the meaning of Kunjed Gyalpo reading it in this light." —— Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
-
"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."
~ The Dalai Lama