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.
With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??
I don't think the other paths necessarily are Samsaric. It's that over the many years, church (or whatever) leadership has skewed everything so much that they miss the point of the actual teachings. I think like so many things it's based on fear, in trying to answer the more difficult questions they miss the point of daily living. I think Buddhism does really well in that regard, and I've read more than once that Buddhism is maybe the only religion that does even halfway decent at maintaining it's actual message. But that doesn't mean the other religions/faiths/traditions don't have the same basic message, it's just gotten lost, or more hidden. I do know people of various faiths who are able to read between the lines, to understand metaphors and stories for what they are and to pluck the actual wisdom out. It is uncommon, of course, but short of what they believe about the afterlife the differences are pretty slim. When one actually practices and studies a tradition, the truth becomes known. What most people learn from religious leaders, is not exactly the truth most of the time. It's their skewed version of the truth based on control and fear.
3
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
It depends on how one understands suffering and cessation. For the sake of simplicity I equate suffering with dissatisfaction and cessation with contentment.
Some of what we would call the most primitive cultures still surviving today have spiritual beliefs where questions such as these don't arise yet they are very contented peoples, at one with the universe and their place in. This despite their harsh life in relation to our living high on the hog. They don't have a path but a way of life. We are the one's dissatisfied with life and seeking contentment.
If you understand Buddhism to be a path than the answer would seem to be yes. If you understand Buddhism to be rather a way of life then the answer would seem to be no.
Ironic ? I don't know. A fact ? Many Vajrayana schools do not teach either the 8fp or 4nt at all...They dont deny them...they simply ignore them..check it out. Other Vajrayana schools like the Gelug teach them in much the same way that a Theravada teacher would....The point being a lack of Universality. And for many Dzogchen schools the 8fp and 4nt. would indicate would a position which reinforces Duality.
Not in my sangha of Tibetan Buddhism. Rigdzin Shikpo wrote a nice book about the four noble truths, Never Turn Away. He is the head of the longchenpa foundation.. That book never mentions the four noble truths or discusses the deer park sermon. But all of the content is about the four noble truths and this is stated somewhere.
So not true that all dzogchen sanghas don't teach the 4NT. My lama explained to me that right view is a very advanced realization. But in her course from a mundane non noble perspective her beginner course developes the 8f. It just doesn't discuss them as a title. Just all the material she gives us gives us the path.
They don't have a path but a way of life. We are the one's dissatisfied with life and seeking contentment.
Speak for my self . . . or did I mean yourself . . .:) Dis Ease or malcontentment, disquiet, dukkha is the lack of enlightenment and basic nirvana. We do not or can not or choose not to accept, allow and expect itches, death, illness, difficult situations. Embrace the dukkha. You can't fight it, that just creates conflicted arisings to add to the karma. Can we improve? Make for more contentment? Always, no big deal, just the common sense of the 8 fold path or other suggestions leading to well being. :clap:
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I have little doubt that people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa were a lot more closer to liberation than a lot of other Buddhists who were following a "non-samsaric" path. Saying this from the viewpoint that Gandhi and Mother Theresa were likely to have been much more advanced in terms of merit and the perfections (paramitas) than those Buddhists.
So even if the proposition that other paths are "samsaric" is true, I don't see that as a "problem". People on "samsaric" paths can also develop merit and the perfections. When these are fully developed, karmic factors will inevitably open the possibility for these people to attain liberation whatever path they happen to be on.
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
On a theoretical level, it is easy to say this thing about this liberation thing. But have you found out a person who has achieved both Self-Realization and Nirvana - because that person only can tell what is the exact difference in the experience of these two things - or may be he even cannot tell as it may be beyond language to convey it.
on a practical level, as described in Anapanasati, the stages are nimitta, four form levels of jhana, four formless levels of jhana, then unconditioned. But for experiencing nimitta, both body and mind needs to be let go of - so when both these things are let go of to experience nimitta, then what is that thing which decides that the next thing it has to do is to go to four levels of jhana, then four formless levels of jhana, then unconditioned - Because even for Self-Realization, the stage of no thought is needed for a considerable amount of time in the stage of Samadhi, which is the 8th step of Yoga Sutras and then Kundalini awakening process starts leading to meeting of Shakti with Shiva at seventh crown chakra - and no thought implies no mind - so here also the body and mind are let go of in the state of Samadhi or absorption. So what is that thing which will decide that now it has to go on Anapansati way or Self-Realization way, when both body and mind are let go of?
my thinking says: may be ultimate truth is so large that all religious paths describe only an aspect of it in conventional terms - and only during the direct experience of ultimate truth can the ultimate truth be known.
@misecmisc, I dont think introducing the Hindu view of the origin of religious forms does anything but muddy the water even more. Buddhadharma must be understood by its own lights. As must Christianity. If we fully enter either we may find that at depth they have a common source. But to simply draw a veil of 19th century Hindu universalism over both is to misunderstand both. The idea that The Buddha and Jesus are manifestations of Visnu is equally offensive to most Buddhists and most Christians.
@Citta: I think you have misread my post. So please read it again. I have not made the above points in my post. Rather i have suggested the view-points of different religions, which are all equal and have in them the way leading to cessation of suffering, though it might have been unfortunately suppressed in current time, due to rites and rituals of religions taking dominance over the actual message of religions of finding peace inside us.
I don't think the other paths necessarily are Samsaric. It's that over the many years, church (or whatever) leadership has skewed everything so much that they miss the point of the actual teachings. I think like so many things it's based on fear, in trying to answer the more difficult questions they miss the point of daily living. I think Buddhism does really well in that regard, and I've read more than once that Buddhism is maybe the only religion that does even halfway decent at maintaining it's actual message. But that doesn't mean the other religions/faiths/traditions don't have the same basic message, it's just gotten lost, or more hidden.
In Thailand, it is often said that the current period of Buddhism as founded by Buddha Gautama would only last 5000 years as from the time Buddha entered into nirvana. This is based on what was said in the ancient commentaries of the Pali Canon. When a group of Thais met the Dalai Lama and asked him about this prediction, he confirmed that such a prediction also exists in Tibetan Buddhism.
It would be natural that the decline of Buddhism will involve the true message of Buddha's teachings eventually becoming lost before disappearing altogether. In at least one text, the blame for Buddhism's decline and destruction rests solely on the Sangha (in this context meaning the community of monks).
According to the Sutra on Ananda's Seven Dreams, the decline and destruction of Buddhism is described as follows (note that the term "Sangha" as used in this Sutra refers only to the community of monks ie. not including laypersons):
Ananda had strange dreams one night, so the following day he told the Buddha, "Oh Enlightened One, I had strange dreams last night, and I hope that the Buddha can clarify them for me.
I first dreamed that all the rivers and oceans were burned up by great fire.
In my second dream.....
......
In the seventh dream, a lion died, but other carnivorous animals did not dare to approach to eat the flesh. Instead, worms came out of the lion's body and ate its flesh."
"Why would I have these strange dreams?" asked Ananda.
Then the Buddha replied with concern in his eyes.
"Ananda, let me explain them to you. In the first dream, you saw the fire burning up the rivers and the oceans. This indicates that in the future, monks and nuns will betray my teachings and start disagreements within the Sangha.
In the second dream, your head supported Mount Sumeru. This means that in ninety days I will pass away. All the monks, heavenly beings and human beings will need your help to remember and pass down my teachings.
In the third dream, you saw monks and nuns putting on the robes but not following my teachings. This means that after I pass away, the Sangha will give lectures on my teachings to large gatherings of people, but the Sangha itself will not follow my teachings.
You saw monks not wearing the robes, lingering among the thorns. This shows that in the future there will be monks not wearing the robes but commoners' clothes. They will abandon the precepts and adopt commoners' lives, and they will also have wives and children.
You saw wild pigs rooting at the candana tree. The Sangha in the future will not promote my teachings, but will only look after their own livelihood by selling statues of Buddhas and holding various services for commoners.
Sixth, you saw young elephants not listening to the adult elephants and later dying from starvation. This means that in the future, new monks and nuns will not listen to the teachings of the elder monks, and they will fall into purgatory after death.
Seventh, you saw [a dead lion being eaten by worms that came out of its own flesh]. It indicates that no other religions will destroy my teaching, but it will be destroyed from those within the Sangha."
"Ananda, what you dreamt last night is the future of Buddhism," said the Buddha.
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I have little doubt that people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa were a lot more closer to liberation than a lot of other Buddhists who were following a "non-samsaric" path. Saying this from the viewpoint that Gandhi and Mother Theresa were likely to have been much more advanced in terms of merit and the perfections (paramitas) than those Buddhists.
So even if the proposition that other paths are "samsaric" is true, I don't see that as a "problem". People on "samsaric" paths can also develop merit and the perfections. When these are fully developed, karmic factors will inevitably open the possibility for these people to attain liberation whatever path they happen to be on.
They have many virtues but they are not close to Liberation, Virtue does not necessarily equate with Enlightenment or Nirvana indeed these factors are prerequisites to these accomplishments but they are not indications of having such accomplishments.
Also to call these virtues a perfection would be entirely mistaken, A perfection is anyone of the 6 paramitas cultivated to its maximum motivated by Bodhichitta and performed with the wisdom view of Emptiness. While Mother Theresa and Ghandi may have been virtuous people it would not have been possible for them to have an actual perfection of these virtues that is something unique to the Buddhadharma.
Samsaric paths are a problem in the long run, Samsara is like a wheel that is being continually turned contaminated virtue causes Rebirth in more fortunate states of existence therefore following a path that leads to high rebirth within Samsara will still get you more of Samsara. Even the Gods have to die at some point and when they do they are unfortunate enough to be able to see their next destination of Rebirth which is usually somewhere disgusting.
However as you say there is always the possibility merit may ripen for them from having collected virtue, But it would only be fortunate if they came into contact with Buddhadharma as it is the only method that eliminates the cause of Samsara.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
Papanca.
0
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
There were enlightened and liberated people before Buddha and many more after he died; Buddhist and non-Buddhist. I'm fairly certain that Mahavira, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, etc., Christ, Rumi, and Lao Tzu found their own paths to liberation. All without buddha.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
You mean apart from the fact that we have not the slightest idea what the historical Gautama taught ? Always assuming that the historical Gautama was in fact historical ? There is a very good case to be made in fact for the whole Pali Canon being a 'late addition'... And yes, there is lots of evidence on the specific issue of the 8fp.... But it will be quicker for you to be unconvinced by the evidence straight away and cut out the middle man. But in fact it is of little import if the 8fp path was taught by Gautama or was cobbled together centuries later by commitee..it represents the sutric path and as such is of relevance to only some Buddhist traditions.
Ironic ? I don't know. A fact ? Many Vajrayana schools do not teach either the 8fp or 4nt at all...They dont deny them...they simply ignore them..check it out. Other Vajrayana schools like the Gelug teach them in much the same way that a Theravada teacher would....The point being a lack of Universality. And for many Dzogchen schools the 8fp and 4nt. would indicate would a position which reinforces Duality.
Not in my sangha of Tibetan Buddhism. Rigdzin Shikpo wrote a nice book about the four noble truths, Never Turn Away. He is the head of the longchenpa foundation.. That book never mentions the four noble truths or discusses the deer park sermon. But all of the content is about the four noble truths and this is stated somewhere.
So not true that all dzogchen sanghas don't teach the 4NT. My lama explained to me that right view is a very advanced realization. But in her course from a mundane non noble perspective her beginner course developes the 8f. It just doesn't discuss them as a title. Just all the material she gives us gives us the path.
Hence the ' many schools do not ' etc. And many Dzogchen schools including that of ChNN do not distinguish between 'advanced' and less advanced realisations. And see the 8fp as unneccessary. But don't take my word for this...on vajracakra.com you will find both pov's being argued. But as the majority on that forum are students of ChNN the prevailing view is that Ngondro and Sutric approaches add nothing to Pointing Out. In Dzogchen schools like that of ChNN the preliminaries ( including contemplation of the 8fp ) are replaced or superceded by Rushan and Trechko. But there are limits to discussion of this on an open forum. This whole sidebar came about in order to bring claims of universality within Buddhadharma into perspective.
The buddha of the suttas when questioned by this types of questions usually answers something as "but what is this end of suffering you are talking of?, what it ceases?, how it ceases?." If we go by this line of reasoning we end up understanding that only buddhism can achieve "this end of suffering".
If u leave the meaning of cessation of suffering open to interpretation, there are many paths that can achieve it.
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
There were enlightened and liberated people before Buddha and many more after he died; Buddhist and non-Buddhist. I'm fairly certain that Mahavira, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, etc., Christ, Rumi, and Lao Tzu found their own paths to liberation. All without buddha.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
And how exactly do you know this?
Its a waste of time discussing with you seeing as you cannot distinguish between mandated religious practice and worldly conflicts. Let alone Liberation from Samsara.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
There were enlightened and liberated people before Buddha and many more after he died; Buddhist and non-Buddhist. I'm fairly certain that Mahavira, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, etc., Christ, Rumi, and Lao Tzu found their own paths to liberation. All without buddha.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
And how exactly do you know this?
Its a waste of time discussing with you seeing as you cannot distinguish between mandated religious practice and worldly conflicts. Let alone Liberation from Samsara.
Agreed. It's a waste of time discussing with you as well. It appears you are set in your ways and turn a blind eye to beliefs and practices which are not your own. Buddha (allegedly) stated to not believe anything unless it makes sense to you. For you, it's New Kampada. For me, it's Hinduism. For others, it is their respective paths. None are inherently better than the other, but you obviously don't hold that view.
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
There were enlightened and liberated people before Buddha and many more after he died; Buddhist and non-Buddhist. I'm fairly certain that Mahavira, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, etc., Christ, Rumi, and Lao Tzu found their own paths to liberation. All without buddha.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
And how exactly do you know this?
Its a waste of time discussing with you seeing as you cannot distinguish between mandated religious practice and worldly conflicts. Let alone Liberation from Samsara.
Agreed. It's a waste of time discussing with you as well. It appears you are set in your ways and turn a blind eye to beliefs and practices which are not your own. Buddha (allegedly) stated to not believe anything unless it makes sense to you. For you, it's New Kampada. For me, it's Hinduism. For others, it is their respective paths. None are inherently better than the other, but you obviously don't hold that view.
If Hinduism is your path why are you here ? You will only encounter people who disagree with you (unless that is you are Trolling for responses) certainly Buddhism doesn't view it as a genuine path to Liberation otherwise there would have been no point Buddha teaching. The UU view of world religions doesn't cut it im afraid each is different and has its own unique qualities not all of these qualities are good and not all of these qualities induce Liberation or Enlightenment especially in Religious practices that act as a inroad to Samsara which is typical of the Union with God types.
0
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
There were enlightened and liberated people before Buddha and many more after he died; Buddhist and non-Buddhist. I'm fairly certain that Mahavira, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, etc., Christ, Rumi, and Lao Tzu found their own paths to liberation. All without buddha.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
And how exactly do you know this?
Its a waste of time discussing with you seeing as you cannot distinguish between mandated religious practice and worldly conflicts. Let alone Liberation from Samsara.
Agreed. It's a waste of time discussing with you as well. It appears you are set in your ways and turn a blind eye to beliefs and practices which are not your own. Buddha (allegedly) stated to not believe anything unless it makes sense to you. For you, it's New Kampada. For me, it's Hinduism. For others, it is their respective paths. None are inherently better than the other, but you obviously don't hold that view.
If Hinduism is your path why are you here ? You will only encounter people who disagree with you (unless that is you are Trolling for responses) certainly Buddhism doesn't view it as a genuine path to Liberation otherwise there would have been no point Buddha teaching. The UU view of world religions doesn't cut it im afraid each is different and has its own unique qualities not all of these qualities are good and not all of these qualities induce Liberation or Enlightenment especially in Religious practices that act as a inroad to Samsara which is typical of the Union with God types.
I'm here, because I still follow the philosophy of Buddhism and, in a way, consider him my guru. I most certainly am not here to troll. Of course there will always be people who disagree with me, which is why I love a good discussion. I also love being a Unitarian Univrrsalist, because it allows me to be open to everyone's philosophies and paths, and not let my ego believe that mine is the only one to liberation/ enlightenment.
Buddhadharma is the only method in the world that leads to liberation and great enlightenment, Many others train their selves to the peak of Samsara but lack the tools to break through.
@caz: Mahavira was also enlightened and the teachings of Mahavira formed the religion of Jainism.
moreover, Hinduism also states that initially there was sunyata - from this sunyata, arose Universal Consciousness (Shiva) as a manifestation - something like sunyata and Shiva are the two aspects of the same thing - from Shiva, arose matter(Shakti or Prakriti) through manifestation, which lead to the creation of Samsara - in the end, everything dissolves back to Shiva or shunyata. Also, Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali contains 8 steps to follow to realize True Self. Also, Lord Krishna taught that the ultimate goal of human life is Self-Realization.
Christ and Mohammad became one with God - now, the question comes what you can call God? is God the same as a ruler of heaven, as Hinduism or Buddhism states - or - is God another name for the ultimate reality. how can we know if it is not the later thing? So if God is another name for the experience of ultimate reality or peace, which can be seen through ending of ignorance, then the paths of Christ and Mohammad can also lead to ultimate reality - provided, we leave the rites and rituals and put things in correct perspective.
so all these religions also have the path for ending of suffering and leading to ultimate reality.
The problem with other paths is they are Samsaric, Liberation is literally the peak of the formless realm of Samsara for them because of Incorrect views particularly that of conceiving phenomena to exist as independent they can never really abandon Self grasping let alone the subtlest levels of this delusion. Those who achieve this distinct accomplishment usually belong to the Jain's or Hindu following but it is not actual liberation.
The Abrahamic faiths get no where near this accomplishment at the most they could accomplish would be rebirth within the Desire realm of the Gods, Some of what is practiced amongst them they would be lucky to reach a higher realm at all.
I don't think calling another persons path as "samsaric" and not leading to "actual liberation" is right speech or a right view. Personally, I don't think Buddha would be that pleased to hear that one who claims to follow his path thinks it is the only legitimate one.
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
As per the topic of the discussion "With a simple YES or NO! Do you believe buddhism is the ONLY path to the Cessation Of Suffering??#2" It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
There were enlightened and liberated people before Buddha and many more after he died; Buddhist and non-Buddhist. I'm fairly certain that Mahavira, Plato, Socrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, etc., Christ, Rumi, and Lao Tzu found their own paths to liberation. All without buddha.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
So, Jesus and Mohammed, Al-Halaj and Rumi, the writers of the Upanishads, Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, Plotinus and the pseudo-Dionysius, Mary Magdelene and St. Theresa, Mani and Zoroaster and all the rest, no hope for them then?
Many of them will be trapped in Samsara for a long time.
And how exactly do you know this?
Its a waste of time discussing with you seeing as you cannot distinguish between mandated religious practice and worldly conflicts. Let alone Liberation from Samsara.
Agreed. It's a waste of time discussing with you as well. It appears you are set in your ways and turn a blind eye to beliefs and practices which are not your own. Buddha (allegedly) stated to not believe anything unless it makes sense to you. For you, it's New Kampada. For me, it's Hinduism. For others, it is their respective paths. None are inherently better than the other, but you obviously don't hold that view.
If Hinduism is your path why are you here ? You will only encounter people who disagree with you (unless that is you are Trolling for responses) certainly Buddhism doesn't view it as a genuine path to Liberation otherwise there would have been no point Buddha teaching. The UU view of world religions doesn't cut it im afraid each is different and has its own unique qualities not all of these qualities are good and not all of these qualities induce Liberation or Enlightenment especially in Religious practices that act as a inroad to Samsara which is typical of the Union with God types.
I'm here, because I still follow the philosophy of Buddhism and, in a way, consider him my guru. I most certainly am not here to troll. Of course there will always be people who disagree with me, which is why I love a good discussion. I also love being a Unitarian Univrrsalist, because it allows me to be open to everyone's philosophies and paths, and not let my ego believe that mine is the only one to liberation/ enlightenment.
They have many virtues but they are not close to Liberation, Virtue does not necessarily equate with Enlightenment or Nirvana indeed these factors are prerequisites to these accomplishments but they are not indications of having such accomplishments.
I didn't say they were close to liberation. I said I believe them to be a lot "closer" to liberation than a lot of Buddhists.
In Theravada, it is said that the path to arahantship takes at least ten aeons and could be up to one hundred thousand aeons. This would be the time it takes to fully develop merit and the perfections. I don't think we can assume that for every zillions and zillions of rebirths during those aeons we will always be a Buddhist in all those lifetimes. In any case there will be those eras when the teachings of a Buddha are non-existent, so being a non-Buddhist is inescapable. However, the fact is when we are not Buddhists, we can still accumulate merit and develop the perfections by practicing generosity, virtue, loving kindness, patience, truthfulness etc.
Also to call these virtues a perfection would be entirely mistaken, A perfection is anyone of the 6 paramitas cultivated to its maximum motivated by Bodhichitta and performed with the wisdom view of Emptiness. While Mother Theresa and Ghandi may have been virtuous people it would not have been possible for them to have an actual perfection of these virtues that is something unique to the Buddhadharma.
In Theravada, we do not believe that development of the perfections requires Bodhichitta. Those who aspire to become arahants must also develop the ten perfections but to a much lesser degree and for a much shorter time than those who aspire to become a Buddha.
Samsaric paths are a problem in the long run, Samsara is like a wheel that is being continually turned contaminated virtue causes Rebirth in more fortunate states of existence therefore following a path that leads to high rebirth within Samsara will still get you more of Samsara. Even the Gods have to die at some point and when they do they are unfortunate enough to be able to see their next destination of Rebirth which is usually somewhere disgusting.
Yes, birth into the higher realms is also suffering. But can even Buddhists escape from being reborn into the higher realms? Again, according to theory, it's not possible to achieve liberation is just one, single birth. The Buddha also took birth in various higher and lower realms while developing the perfections. It will be the same for you after this lifetime. If you are not liberated then what? You will be liable to birth into the higher realms (and you might meet Gandhi and Mother Theresa there too!).
The Buddha saw the inevitability of rebirth during the time it takes to develop merit and the perfections and therefore in many suttas, birth into the higher realms is to be seen as a preferred destination since many disciples would not be able to achieve liberation in the present life. For example, in the Kalama Sutta the Buddha said that rebirth into the heavenly world was a "good destination" and should be considered as "an assurance" of following the practice:
"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires."
So the fact that virtuous people following other paths will be born into higher realms due to, in your words, their "contaminated virtue" is not necessarily a bad thing. It is preferable than being born into the lower realms. Just like in the case of a Buddhist, these non-Buddhists also cannot yet escape samsara. While still being stuck in samsara, whether as a Buddhist or non-Buddhist in the present lifetime, we should aim to be virtuous and endowed with other wholesome qualities in order to gain "assurance" of a "good destination", ie. "the heavenly world" (but of course, if we can achieve something higher than that like stream entry, then great! But if not, the higher realms are our "assurance").
However as you say there is always the possibility merit may ripen for them from having collected virtue, But it would only be fortunate if they came into contact with Buddhadharma as it is the only method that eliminates the cause of Samsara.
I think its apparent that people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa are very highly developed and have a store of abundant merit. So it is most likely that they had taken rebirth in the heavenly realms after death. That means there's a chance the ripening of their high merit may be a cause for them to hear the Dhamma as heavenly beings when Maitreya becomes a Buddha since it is known that a Buddha also goes to heaven to teach the devas and in fact many devas attained liberation during Buddha Gautama's time.
So one point is this. Following non-Buddhist paths is actually unavoidable during the aeons it takes to develop the perfections and merit to be ready for liberation. I would say that you as well in some previous lives have been non-Buddhist and if you have more future lives to be born into, are you certain that for the next thousands or more of rebirths you will always be a Buddhist every single time? What if you were born into a time when the teachings were non-existent?
My main point is that when one is on a non-Buddhist path, this is not necessarily a "problem" (as you portray it to be). In order for this to be the case, the important thing is to practice wholesome qualities such as virtue, generosity, loving kindness, patience, truthfulness, etc. which are qualities that exists and are encouraged by the wise found in a variety of paths. That is why I don't see that in the case of people like Gandhi or Mother Theresa, the fact they were non-Buddhists is a "problem". They lived their lives wholesomely and thus advanced themselves closer towards liberation through accumulation of merit and the perfections. In fact I also believe they achieved more in their lifetime than many other Buddhists did. I suppose that is why after meeting Gandhi, the Dalai Lama said, "I felt I was in the presence of a noble soul . . . a true disciple of Lord Buddha and a true believer in peace and harmony among all men."
Ironic ? I don't know. A fact ? Many Vajrayana schools do not teach either the 8fp or 4nt at all...They dont deny them...they simply ignore them..check it out. Other Vajrayana schools like the Gelug teach them in much the same way that a Theravada teacher would....The point being a lack of Universality. And for many Dzogchen schools the 8fp and 4nt. would indicate would a position which reinforces Duality.
Not in my sangha of Tibetan Buddhism. Rigdzin Shikpo wrote a nice book about the four noble truths, Never Turn Away. He is the head of the longchenpa foundation.. That book never mentions the four noble truths or discusses the deer park sermon. But all of the content is about the four noble truths and this is stated somewhere.
So not true that all dzogchen sanghas don't teach the 4NT. My lama explained to me that right view is a very advanced realization. But in her course from a mundane non noble perspective her beginner course developes the 8f. It just doesn't discuss them as a title. Just all the material she gives us gives us the path.
Hence the ' many schools do not ' etc. And many Dzogchen schools including that of ChNN do not distinguish between 'advanced' and less advanced realisations. And see the 8fp as unneccessary. But don't take my word for this...on vajracakra.com you will find both pov's being argued. But as the majority on that forum are students of ChNN the prevailing view is that Ngondro and Sutric approaches add nothing to Pointing Out. In Dzogchen schools like that of ChNN the preliminaries ( including contemplation of the 8fp ) are replaced or superceded by Rushan and Trechko. But there are limits to discussion of this on an open forum. This whole sidebar came about in order to bring claims of universality within Buddhadharma into perspective.
The Buddha taught that belief in a creator god (AKA Abrahamic religions) is a wrong view and that it's impossible for one to attain enlightenment while holding wrong views.
The Buddha taught that belief in a creator god (AKA Abrahamic religions) is a wrong view and that it's impossible for one to attain enlightenment while holding wrong views.
With so many Buddhists holding right views, where are all the enlightened ones? They are as rare as hens teeth. Insight will be the cause of right views, not the other way around. So I wouldn't be too worried about having some strange beliefs in the mean time.
Ironic ? I don't know. A fact ? Many Vajrayana schools do not teach either the 8fp or 4nt at all...They dont deny them...they simply ignore them..check it out. Other Vajrayana schools like the Gelug teach them in much the same way that a Theravada teacher would....The point being a lack of Universality. And for many Dzogchen schools the 8fp and 4nt. would indicate would a position which reinforces Duality.
Not in my sangha of Tibetan Buddhism. Rigdzin Shikpo wrote a nice book about the four noble truths, Never Turn Away. He is the head of the longchenpa foundation.. That book never mentions the four noble truths or discusses the deer park sermon. But all of the content is about the four noble truths and this is stated somewhere.
So not true that all dzogchen sanghas don't teach the 4NT. My lama explained to me that right view is a very advanced realization. But in her course from a mundane non noble perspective her beginner course developes the 8f. It just doesn't discuss them as a title. Just all the material she gives us gives us the path.
Hence the ' many schools do not ' etc. And many Dzogchen schools including that of ChNN do not distinguish between 'advanced' and less advanced realisations. And see the 8fp as unneccessary. But don't take my word for this...on vajracakra.com you will find both pov's being argued. But as the majority on that forum are students of ChNN the prevailing view is that Ngondro and Sutric approaches add nothing to Pointing Out. In Dzogchen schools like that of ChNN the preliminaries ( including contemplation of the 8fp ) are replaced or superceded by Rushan and Trechko. But there are limits to discussion of this on an open forum. This whole sidebar came about in order to bring claims of universality within Buddhadharma into perspective.
The Buddha taught that belief in a creator god (AKA Abrahamic religions) is a wrong view and that it's impossible for one to attain enlightenment while holding wrong views.
Abraham lived 1500 years before the Buddha, so when it comes to views perhaps he has first dibs.
There is a very good case to be made in fact for the whole Pali Canon being a 'late addition'... And yes, there is lots of evidence on the specific issue of the 8fp....
And many Dzogchen schools including that of ChNN do not distinguish between 'advanced' and less advanced realisations. And see the 8fp as unneccessary.
That's fine, but I think you're trying to present a charicature of Theravada practice through the lens of your own school's assumptions, which is entirely subjective and rather pointless. It's little more than sectarian point-scoring.
And many Dzogchen schools including that of ChNN do not distinguish between 'advanced' and less advanced realisations. And see the 8fp as unneccessary.
That's fine, but I think you're trying to present a charicature of Theravada practice through the lens of your own school's assumptions, which is entirely subjective and rather pointless. It's little more than sectarian point-scoring.
I am not commenting on Theravada practice at all per se. When asked " which Buddhism" ( leads exclusively to the cessation of suffering ) Zenmyste replied the 8fp. I was pointing out that the 8fp was not held as axiomatic by all schools of Buddhism. Among those who do not hold them as axiomatic are many Vajrayana schools, many Pureland schools, Some Zen schools, Among the Tendai and Shingon views vary, as they do among the Vajrayana. In fact it appears that the 'lens' is an assumption that an axiom consistent to the schemata of the Theravada has a universal application within Buddhadharma...
The Buddha taught that belief in a creator god (AKA Abrahamic religions) is a wrong view and that it's impossible for one to attain enlightenment while holding wrong views.
With so many Buddhists holding right views, where are all the enlightened ones? They are as rare as hens teeth.
Much more is required that just conceptual right view, that is why there are not enlightened people all over the place. They are as rare as hens teeth because 8 steps are needed. Right view is number 1.
Insight will be the cause of right views, not the other way around. So I wouldn't be too worried about having some strange beliefs in the mean time.
I would say that is 1/2 true. Strange belief prevent you from developing genuine insight to begin with. There is a good reason why right view is number 1, and not number 8, of the 8 fold path.
This is a good article about it.
Though the practice of right mindfulness has rightly been extolled as the crest jewel of the Buddha's teaching, it cannot be stressed strongly enough that the practice of mindfulness, or any other approach to meditation, only becomes an effective instrument of liberation to the extent that it is founded upon and guided by right view. Hence, to confirm the importance of right view, the Buddha places it at the very beginning of the Noble Eightfold Path. Elsewhere in the Suttas the Buddha calls right view the forerunner of the path (pubbangama), which gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors.
Right view, as explained in the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta, has a variety of aspects, but it might best be considered as twofold: conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of the principles enunciated in the Buddha's teaching, and experiential right view, which is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching. Conceptual right view, also called the right view in conformity with the truths (saccanulomika-sammaditthi), is a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning. Such understanding, though conceptual rather than experiential, is not dry and sterile. When rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth embedded in the formulated principles of the Dhamma, it serves as a critical phase in the development of wisdom (pañña), for it provides the germ out of which experiential right view gradually evolves.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html
The Buddha taught that belief in a creator god (AKA Abrahamic religions) is a wrong view and that it's impossible for one to attain enlightenment while holding wrong views.
Abraham lived 1500 years before the Buddha, so when it comes to views perhaps he has first dibs.
Partly Yes, i am still in the process but i have made a cocktail of teachings which are helping me beat my 'truck load of dung' as Ajahn Brahm would put it.
Comments
Also, nice to hear that you think those who are Abrahamic would not "reach a higher realm" and won't accomplish what you apparently can. :-/
Some of what we would call the most primitive cultures still surviving today have spiritual beliefs where questions such as these don't arise yet they are very contented peoples, at one with the universe and their place in. This despite their harsh life in relation to our living high on the hog. They don't have a path but a way of life. We are the one's dissatisfied with life and seeking contentment.
If you understand Buddhism to be a path than the answer would seem to be yes. If you understand Buddhism to be rather a way of life then the answer would seem to be no.
So not true that all dzogchen sanghas don't teach the 4NT. My lama explained to me that right view is a very advanced realization. But in her course from a mundane non noble perspective her beginner course developes the 8f. It just doesn't discuss them as a title. Just all the material she gives us gives us the path.
Dis Ease or malcontentment, disquiet, dukkha is the lack of enlightenment and basic nirvana. We do not or can not or choose not to accept, allow and expect itches, death, illness, difficult situations.
Embrace the dukkha. You can't fight it, that just creates conflicted arisings to add to the karma.
Can we improve? Make for more contentment? Always, no big deal, just the common sense of the 8 fold path or other suggestions leading to well being. :clap:
Yes? No?
So even if the proposition that other paths are "samsaric" is true, I don't see that as a "problem". People on "samsaric" paths can also develop merit and the perfections. When these are fully developed, karmic factors will inevitably open the possibility for these people to attain liberation whatever path they happen to be on.
on a practical level, as described in Anapanasati, the stages are nimitta, four form levels of jhana, four formless levels of jhana, then unconditioned. But for experiencing nimitta, both body and mind needs to be let go of - so when both these things are let go of to experience nimitta, then what is that thing which decides that the next thing it has to do is to go to four levels of jhana, then four formless levels of jhana, then unconditioned - Because even for Self-Realization, the stage of no thought is needed for a considerable amount of time in the stage of Samadhi, which is the 8th step of Yoga Sutras and then Kundalini awakening process starts leading to meeting of Shakti with Shiva at seventh crown chakra - and no thought implies no mind - so here also the body and mind are let go of in the state of Samadhi or absorption. So what is that thing which will decide that now it has to go on Anapansati way or Self-Realization way, when both body and mind are let go of?
my thinking says: may be ultimate truth is so large that all religious paths describe only an aspect of it in conventional terms - and only during the direct experience of ultimate truth can the ultimate truth be known.
It would be natural that the decline of Buddhism will involve the true message of Buddha's teachings eventually becoming lost before disappearing altogether. In at least one text, the blame for Buddhism's decline and destruction rests solely on the Sangha (in this context meaning the community of monks).
According to the Sutra on Ananda's Seven Dreams, the decline and destruction of Buddhism is described as follows (note that the term "Sangha" as used in this Sutra refers only to the community of monks ie. not including laypersons):
It has turned into something requiring an elaboration on the topic a simple yes or no doesn't do it justice, If you are unable to distinguish the characteristic of one practice to another this makes you unseeing, Buddha was very happy to distinguish right view from wrong view when teaching if we cannot do this then there will be no way to distinguish Buddhadharma from Adharma.
Certain practices are not conducive to higher rebirth such as animal sacrifice as it is commonly practiced amongsts 2/3 of the Abrahamic faiths.
So perhaps you would prefer to debate instead of using Ad Homs.
Also to call these virtues a perfection would be entirely mistaken, A perfection is anyone of the 6 paramitas cultivated to its maximum motivated by Bodhichitta and performed with the wisdom view of Emptiness. While Mother Theresa and Ghandi may have been virtuous people it would not have been possible for them to have an actual perfection of these virtues that is something unique to the Buddhadharma.
Samsaric paths are a problem in the long run, Samsara is like a wheel that is being continually turned contaminated virtue causes Rebirth in more fortunate states of existence therefore following a path that leads to high rebirth within Samsara will still get you more of Samsara. Even the Gods have to die at some point and when they do they are unfortunate enough to be able to see their next destination of Rebirth which is usually somewhere disgusting.
However as you say there is always the possibility merit may ripen for them from having collected virtue, But it would only be fortunate if they came into contact with Buddhadharma as it is the only method that eliminates the cause of Samsara.
Also, even if animal sacrifice was practiced by people of Abrahamic faith (which most don't, FYI), let's noy think Buddhism is exempt from any of its short comings. The Tibetan Liberation Front, The Sri Lanken civil War, the conflict in Burma. Buddhism is not a wholly perfect entity in and of itself; no religous/spiritual path is. It is what the practitioner makes of it.
Perhaps you could not be such a fundamentalist? And how exactly do you know this?
There is a very good case to be made in fact for the whole Pali Canon being a 'late addition'...
And yes, there is lots of evidence on the specific issue of the 8fp....
But it will be quicker for you to be unconvinced by the evidence straight away and cut out the middle man.
But in fact it is of little import if the 8fp path was taught by Gautama or was cobbled together centuries later by commitee..it represents the sutric path and as such is of relevance to only some Buddhist traditions.
And many Dzogchen schools including that of ChNN do not distinguish between 'advanced' and less advanced realisations. And see the 8fp as unneccessary.
But don't take my word for this...on vajracakra.com you will find both pov's being argued.
But as the majority on that forum are students of ChNN the prevailing view is that Ngondro and Sutric approaches add nothing to Pointing Out.
In Dzogchen schools like that of ChNN the preliminaries ( including contemplation of the 8fp ) are replaced or superceded by Rushan and Trechko. But there are limits to discussion of this on an open forum.
This whole sidebar came about in order to bring claims of universality within Buddhadharma into perspective.
The buddha of the suttas when questioned by this types of questions usually answers something as "but what is this end of suffering you are talking of?, what it ceases?, how it ceases?." If we go by this line of reasoning we end up understanding that only buddhism can achieve "this end of suffering".
If u leave the meaning of cessation of suffering open to interpretation, there are many paths that can achieve it.
Too many to mention, too many unknown to me. But there are always multiple paths to a goal.
The Dharma is not 'Buddhist'.
We call it an end, but there is no "end":It is the name of a perception
We call it suffering, but there is no "suffering":It is the name of a perception
It's the same for everything.
Be careful of fear
Be careful of love
Nobody knows why anything happens
Nobody knows why anything happens
Nobody knows why anything happens
Anything that happens is the name of a perception
I didn't say they were close to liberation. I said I believe them to be a lot "closer" to liberation than a lot of Buddhists.
In Theravada, it is said that the path to arahantship takes at least ten aeons and could be up to one hundred thousand aeons. This would be the time it takes to fully develop merit and the perfections. I don't think we can assume that for every zillions and zillions of rebirths during those aeons we will always be a Buddhist in all those lifetimes. In any case there will be those eras when the teachings of a Buddha are non-existent, so being a non-Buddhist is inescapable. However, the fact is when we are not Buddhists, we can still accumulate merit and develop the perfections by practicing generosity, virtue, loving kindness, patience, truthfulness etc.
In Theravada, we do not believe that development of the perfections requires Bodhichitta. Those who aspire to become arahants must also develop the ten perfections but to a much lesser degree and for a much shorter time than those who aspire to become a Buddha.
Yes, birth into the higher realms is also suffering. But can even Buddhists escape from being reborn into the higher realms? Again, according to theory, it's not possible to achieve liberation is just one, single birth. The Buddha also took birth in various higher and lower realms while developing the perfections. It will be the same for you after this lifetime. If you are not liberated then what? You will be liable to birth into the higher realms (and you might meet Gandhi and Mother Theresa there too!).
The Buddha saw the inevitability of rebirth during the time it takes to develop merit and the perfections and therefore in many suttas, birth into the higher realms is to be seen as a preferred destination since many disciples would not be able to achieve liberation in the present life. For example, in the Kalama Sutta the Buddha said that rebirth into the heavenly world was a "good destination" and should be considered as "an assurance" of following the practice:
"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires."
So the fact that virtuous people following other paths will be born into higher realms due to, in your words, their "contaminated virtue" is not necessarily a bad thing. It is preferable than being born into the lower realms. Just like in the case of a Buddhist, these non-Buddhists also cannot yet escape samsara. While still being stuck in samsara, whether as a Buddhist or non-Buddhist in the present lifetime, we should aim to be virtuous and endowed with other wholesome qualities in order to gain "assurance" of a "good destination", ie. "the heavenly world" (but of course, if we can achieve something higher than that like stream entry, then great! But if not, the higher realms are our "assurance").
I think its apparent that people like Gandhi and Mother Theresa are very highly developed and have a store of abundant merit. So it is most likely that they had taken rebirth in the heavenly realms after death. That means there's a chance the ripening of their high merit may be a cause for them to hear the Dhamma as heavenly beings when Maitreya becomes a Buddha since it is known that a Buddha also goes to heaven to teach the devas and in fact many devas attained liberation during Buddha Gautama's time.
So one point is this. Following non-Buddhist paths is actually unavoidable during the aeons it takes to develop the perfections and merit to be ready for liberation. I would say that you as well in some previous lives have been non-Buddhist and if you have more future lives to be born into, are you certain that for the next thousands or more of rebirths you will always be a Buddhist every single time? What if you were born into a time when the teachings were non-existent?
My main point is that when one is on a non-Buddhist path, this is not necessarily a "problem" (as you portray it to be). In order for this to be the case, the important thing is to practice wholesome qualities such as virtue, generosity, loving kindness, patience, truthfulness, etc. which are qualities that exists and are encouraged by the wise found in a variety of paths. That is why I don't see that in the case of people like Gandhi or Mother Theresa, the fact they were non-Buddhists is a "problem". They lived their lives wholesomely and thus advanced themselves closer towards liberation through accumulation of merit and the perfections. In fact I also believe they achieved more in their lifetime than many other Buddhists did. I suppose that is why after meeting Gandhi, the Dalai Lama said, "I felt I was in the presence of a noble soul . . . a true disciple of Lord Buddha and a true believer in peace and harmony among all men."
With so many Buddhists holding right views, where are all the enlightened ones?
They are as rare as hens teeth.
Insight will be the cause of right views, not the other way around.
So I wouldn't be too worried about having some strange beliefs in the mean time.
When asked " which Buddhism" ( leads exclusively to the cessation of suffering ) Zenmyste replied the 8fp. I was pointing out that the 8fp was not held as axiomatic by all schools of Buddhism.
Among those who do not hold them as axiomatic are many Vajrayana schools, many Pureland schools, Some Zen schools, Among the Tendai and Shingon views vary, as they do among the Vajrayana.
In fact it appears that the 'lens' is an assumption that an axiom consistent to the schemata of the Theravada has a universal application within Buddhadharma...
I would say that is 1/2 true.
This is a good article about it.