Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Buddha and questions about God story
Arthurbodhi
Mars Veteran
Hi friends, some time ago I read a story about three men asking to Buddha if God really exist, then Buddha reply diferents answers to each men. God exist for one man, God don't exist for other man and Buddha was silent for third man.
Do you know this story? Do you know where came from, is from a Sutta, Sutra or other source?
Blessings.
Do you know this story? Do you know where came from, is from a Sutta, Sutra or other source?
Blessings.
0
Comments
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Stories/Conditioning/Buddha_explaining_existence_of_God.htm
I didn't find any link of this story to a buddhist text (sutta or sutra), so I really don't know if is a "canonical" (for use a word) story or not.
or same, here: http://www.leighb.com/dn13.htm
however, ignore the commentary in the 2nd, because the path to Brahm does not mean the path to Nibbana
I first began to take a more critical look at the traditional view that the four brahma-viharas only lead to rebirth in the Brahma realms (whether figuratively or literally) and not nibbana myself after reading Richard Gombrich's book, What the Buddha Thought, as well as his article, "Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism."
In the former, for example, he mentions that, while the idea of loving-kindness being salvific is often neglected in Theravada, there are texts in the Pali Canon extolling kindness and how it can lead to enlightenment. One is the Metta Sutta (found at Khp 9 and Snp 1.8), which begins with extolling kindness towards the world, and climaxes with this passage: He notes that, "This conclusion to the poem surely corroborates that the whole poem is about how one may become enlightened. Moreover, it is natural to interpret 'not returning to lie in the womb' as meaning that one will have escaped altogether from the cycle of rebirth, which is to say that one will have attained nirvana" (87). Of course, he's careful to point out that the poem doesn't state kindness alone will produce salvific results, and that it mentions other qualities of great importance (e.g., insight and self-control), but then he brings up Dhp 368: Gombrich concludes this passage is "saying that kindness is salvific, and it is surely no coincidence that the term for nirvana, 'the peaceful state', is the same as the one used at the opening of the Metta Sutta" (87).
So while I'm not sure if loving kindness alone can lead to nibbana, I'm more inclined to agree with Gombrich that it, especially along with the other three, can be salvific in the proper context. It's one of the ten perfections, after all, which are not only the skillful qualities one develops as one follows the path to nibbana, but the basis of the path to full Buddhahood as well.
As for the OP, another text worth taking a look at is MN 100. Interpretations as to what it means differ, however. While the Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi translation appears to present the Buddha affirmatively stating that gods or heavenly beings do indeed exist, as is the traditional position, the Buddha may have held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana's opinion in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, is that: Just something to think about.
I only want to know (mostly by curiosity) from where came this story, and if this show in a more traditional Buddhist text like the Suttas or Sutras.
Thanks for all your answers
Blessings.
metta does not lead to Nibbana because metta, alone, contains the perception of 'beings'. of metta, buddha taught in the core discourses: thus, MN 43 certainly presents metta in a way which illustrates its salvic qualities that nevertheless falls short of nibbana. metta certainly is a kind of ceto-vimutti (including in MN 43) but not the 'unshakeable ceto-vimutti' spoken of in MN 43.
to follow Grombich is certainly not the way of Buddha-Dhamma. Buddha taught: good luck
the cetovimutti of the 4th jhana is not in reference to nibbana. the cetovimutti of nothingness is not in reference to nibbana. the cetovimutti of the signless is not in reference to nibbana. equally, the cetovimutti of the four brahma vihara is not in reference to nibbana.
only suññatā cetovimutti is in reference to nibbana because both suññatā cetovimutti & Nibbana are described as empty of greed, hatred & delusion.
thus it is conclusively shown the views of Grombich do not represent Buddha-Dhamma. in short, there is no need to reinvent the wheel regarding this matter
all the best
As for your ad hominems against Gombrich, which are separate from your actual arguments, I find him to be a competent translator, being proficient in both Pali and Sanskrit, and value his textual analysis. Because of that, I take his opinions into consideration as his knowledge of Pali language and grammar far exceed my own. That doesn't mean I think he's always right, but I do think he's worth listening to. In addition, I find it interesting that you seem to have no trouble dismissing suttas that contradict your interpretations and views as later additions, but are so quick to disregard others when they in turn suggest that certain texts show evidence of early Buddhist debates finding their way into the canonical literature, even when they're arguably experts in the language and textual history in question.
In regard to the arguments themselves, however, I do think they're sound, and they certainly accord with orthodox Theravada on the subject. That said, they disregard Gombrich's analysis of MN 43 as showing evidence of early debates influencing canonical texts. In my opinion, simply quoting MN 43 in order to prove that it's right isn't a very convincing counterargument without at least first making a case for why it should be taken at face value. The same argument you make for being skeptical of many of the suttas in the Digha Nikaya applies here, as well. Make a convincing argument for accepting MN 43 at face value, and I'll definitely have to reassess my opinions on the matter.