Lunitik

These are some words Buddha has said about God, it think it applies a great deal to the God of the Baha'i Faith, as well as Islam and Judaism, even to some degree to Christianity.

This is another Buddhist view of God:

Since Buddha is considered a Manifestation of God in the Baha'i Faith, I would like to know the thoughts of Baha'is on this topic. It seems he is saying that God himself suffers as he desires so strongly for man to be a certain way, to love him, and devote themselves to him. He also says that he has come to teach man AND god the relief of suffering.

LordOfGoblins

Lunitik you have chosen very hardcore quotes.
I dont get anything about "God suffers when we suffer" from it though...

arthra

Some of the above quote in the second citation in the opening post might be from an article found in

God in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm unsure where the first quote is from..maybe it would be good for Lunitik to supply it?

We're generally told by Shoghi Effendi that we cannot be sure of the authenticity of Buddhist scriptures.

The Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but his followers do not possess his authentic writings.

(Shoghi Effendi, Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand, p. 41)

In a letter written on behalf of the beloved Guardian it is also written that 'We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna..

(The Universal House of Justice, 1981 Jan 01, Other Holy Scriptures)

Yeshua

Dear Lunitik

Your first quote does not contain words by his Holiness the Lord Buddha, rather they come from the writings of a man called Sir Charles Eliot, a nineteenth century American scholar who wrote some lengthy treatises on attitudes to the Hindu God Brahma in Early Buddhism.

His writings, and the quote you provide, presents Early Buddhism as being completely atheistic, in terms of an Eternal, Imperishable Deity.

According to Charles Eliot's quote you provide, The Buddha believed that Brahma was one of a number of "gods" who were not the Supreme Being of the Abrahamic tradition but simply sentient devas (heavenly beings) subject to change, final death and decay. Each one of us can die and become a "god", a "brahma" - and go to a heavenly paradise but we will die again and be born again someplace else. The Buddha considered this heavenly world where the temporal and transient gods dwell to be a barrier to enlightenment - since the gods like Brahma are simply perishable beings who lust after pleasure - much like the greek gods - and not anything like the One, immortal, omniscient God of Abraham.

In Buddhism, Gautama Buddha is often given the title, "Teacher of gods and men"...the "gods" here do not refer to the Supreme creator God of monotheistic religions but rather a unique Buddhist concept of a race of powerful beings who reside in a perfect, paradise-like universe separate from our own...some people who die with a certain karma will be born in this place as the "gods"...but they will die after many centuries and be reborn once more someplace else and in some other form...as I said this heavenly world is viewed negatively by Buddhists, since the gods are thought to be indulgent and seekers after pleasure rather than enlightenment...

It is thus a condemnation of theism Lunitik.

Your second quote is similar. It is from the writings of Xuanzen, a 7th century Buddhist monk who completely rejects the idea of an omnipotent, Supreme "Brahama/God" who is self-existent and through the Universe was created. In the quote you provide from his famous book Chen Weishi Lun, Xuanzen caustically derides the idea of a self-existent and Eternal God, categorically stating that there is no place in Buddhism for such an idea, thus advocating a form of spiritual atheism.

Despite the fact that these quotes are not from the Buddha, they are perhaps the worst quotes you could have chosen from later Buddhist commentaries and texts with regards to the idea of a "God" in Buddhism....

A better place to look is in the concept of "Dharmakaya"...this often approaches a reality very close to God in Mahayana Buddhism, as does "Nirvana" and the Dharma in earlier Therevada Buddhism...

According to the wikipedia entry on "Dharmakaya":

"Dharmakaya...constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" (Sanskrit: acintya) aspect of a Buddha, out of which Buddhas – and indeed all "phenomena" (Sanskrit: dharmas) – arise, and to which they return after their dissolution.

Buddhas are manifestations of the Dharmakaya...Unlike ordinary unenlightened persons, Buddhas (and arhats) do not die (though their physical bodies undergo the cessation of biological functions and subsequent disintegration). In the Lotus Sutra (sixth fascicle) the Buddha explains that he has always and will always exist to lead beings to their salvation. This eternal aspect of Buddha is the Dharmakaya. The Dharmakaya may be considered the most sublime or truest reality in the universe"...

As you can see the Dharmakaya is almost identical to the idea in the Baha'i Faith of the Unknowable God and the Buddhas are akin to the Manifestations who "manifest" or reveal Dharmakaya...Dharmakaya is the "unmanifested, inconceivable aspect of the Buddha" in other words, what Baha'is would call the "Divine station" of the Manifestation - their reflection of the One God who according to Mahayana Buddhists, "all phenomena arises (from) and to which they return"...

In terms of Christianity, the concept of the Buddha is very similar to the Divine Logos, the Word of God, who also manifests Dharmakaya to the world and is co-eternal with God and actually is God...

The Bhagavad Gita has much to say about Krishna and other avatars as the manifestation of the unmanifest Brahman...according to the Gita God manifests every "day of Brahma"...a day of Brahma lasts for a thousand years, and so every age the "unmanifest becomes manifest" according to the Gita, after a "Night of Brahma" through which the former age comes to an end and wanes in power, thus hastening the need for a new "Day"...a divine springtime...

In Judaism the Book of Psalms tells us that with God "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day"...ie a "Day of Brahma", a thousand years when the unmanifest becomes manifest...

Simples

BruceDLimber

Another thing to watch out for is confusion of names!

In Buddhism, Brahma is part of the so-called "Buddhist trinity" along with Vishnu and Shiva.

In contrast, Brahman is the term for God Himself.

It's thus quite important not to mix these up.

Regards, :-)

Bruce

Yeshua

Is that not the Hindu "Trinity" - the Trimurti?

I have never heard of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva being venerated by Buddhists.

Lunitik

This is the whole basis of why Buddha says he comes to teach God's and men.

Lunitik

Certainly, however, the general character Baha'u'llah gives to the God which believes he has created is quite negative. He disputes quite openly that the desires of the creator God are exactly what he is teaching the remedy for. Buddha would say that Dharmakaya is above such a God.

Lunitik

It seems you are inferring that such statements are not contained in the Dharmapada, this is certainly false, however. Belief in a God which saves, for Buddha, would be considered insulting. His whole teaching is about personal salvation and liberation. He frequently discusses the interconnectedness of all things, but this is pure consciousness in Buddhism, and Buddha's teachings teach how to attain to this higher consciousness, how to merge with it. However, since the whole teachings of Buddha tell of dropping all attachments which are not genuine, and realizing complete nothingness that is the real you (nirvana means "nothing" in pali) it stands to reason that this is also the nature of Dharmakaya. The God in Judaism and Islam is certainly not free from attachments.

For me, Buddhism has resulting in the most spiritual advancement, I have experienced the beginning stages of Enlightenment though his teachings. The last step to this experience was the dropping of God as separate, realizing - as Christianity states, actually - that God is within. When realizing exactly what was left when all attachment and views are dropped, I had a glimpse of the real. There is nothing which can be called God in this experience, and yet every aspect of it can be considered God depending on definition. Certainly, this is the experience of Dharmakaya, the interconnectedness. I do not believe this is possible to experience when you venerate something external as God, hence the point of this thread.

The most important differentiation between Buddha and a Manifestation is that Buddha teaches all people can be Buddha, more than this he states "Do not become Buddhist, be a Buddha", instructing us to not even take his own words as fact without confirmation. I think this aligns closely with Christian concepts, however Christians hold Christ's state as something unattainable by humans. Christians say you can merge with the body of Christ, Buddhists say you can be your own Buddha. Buddha speaks a great deal about not depending on anyone else for your own salvation, Christ teaches he is salvation. Buddha says he can show the way but cannot do it for you, Christians believe Christ has already done it for all that accept him.

Lunitik

I am quite familiar with the trimurti, I would certainly say it is fair to align Dharmakaya with Brahman - although to name each is to possess this truth for yourself, it then ceases to be truth, it becomes your interpretation. Buddha is all about finding ones own nature, certainly he is quite against devotion and worship of anything outside you - he would not approve of what his faith has become, although most often what appears as worship is merely respect and object based concentration. Pure consciousness holds no views, it merely watches, the God in most faiths certainly has desires for humans, and thus will suffer if they are not met. In other faiths, God is the desire, Buddha would say both result in suffering.

It is important to consider, I think, that if God wanted us to behave in a certain way, he would be capable of simply not allowing behavior that is contrary. In Buddhism, no beings can be the ultimate, they are all on one of the 31 planes of existence:

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

Note level 14, this is the realm of Allah and Yahweh also. There is no creator in Buddhism, no first cause. You will state that free will is a blessing, but if God wishes free will, why intervene? Why not simply watch what happens? It would seem more logical that he simply doesn't have control over humans, that he merely thinks he is in control. This God is the reason for lack of liberation, not the provider thereof. Sex is perhaps the most clear example of this, it has been repressed throughout human history, always it is treated as something evil, only permissible under certain circumstances. This has resulted in an evolution fail, due to separation between sexes while still experiencing sexual desire, this God has created homosexuality. I would suggest that this God is actually jealous of human sexuality, for in his realm, sex is not possible. Since this God, full of desire, cannot experience it, he has made it evil for humans. There are many other examples of saintly or holy behavior actually merely being repression, but this is the most obvious since we clearly see the acting out once the repression has inevitably resulted in obsession.

Lunitik

They're not... in fact Buddha states these beings are just as delusional as any human, stuck in the cycles of birth, sickness, old age and death. Buddha comes to teach each of these beings as well, what I am trying to decipher is whether such a control freak of a God as is found in Judaism and Islam can be considered Dharmakaya/Brahman. I believe Jesus was an Essene, this group had much contact with Buddhists in Judea, and so I think Christ may be discussing Buddhism in a way Jews can comprehend. Similarly, Buddhism has had much influence on Sufi's, which is the school that Baha'u'llah has come out of. Buddha also attempted to show Hindu's the errors of their differentiation through the veneration of varying God's, the problems with sacrificing animals and the treatments of those born in differing casts or different sexes. Today, yoga and tantra practices - although using terms from vedanta groups - are essentially Buddhist through their concepts.

For me, Buddha has had more influence on religion and philosophy than any other being that has ever existed simply because of the truths inherent. Through his methods, there is a much higher success rate of realization in adherents, but alas many groups still insist on holding onto their traditions despite realizing the truths of Buddhas words, thus they merge the two. This results in the mystic branches of each faith, but always you can trace the Buddhist influence. I find it humorous that Baha'is think Baha'u'llah is the first to teach many things such as equality of the sexes when Buddha taught the same things 2500 years before.

I cannot be a Baha'i, however, because Baha'u'llah has taught there is no way to merge - I have experienced this merge, so his words are plainly false for me. Similarly, I cannot be Christian because I do not believe Jesus has saved anything, we each are responsible for our own salvation - this is the whole goal of the mystic schools, and the direct teaching of Buddha. I have gone off on a tangent, however, please forgive me.

Lari

It is hogwash to say that the Baha'i faith does not teach merging or Divine Union. Ever more hogwash is to say that there are any more accomplished souls coming from Buddhism than from any other religion. Buddhism is very marketed in the west at cost of Christianity without any cause, and the way it is marketed is misleading, further diluting its precepts.

Also, it is wise not to speak much about one's own spiritual attainment. It is very easy to fall prey on all kinds of illusions.

Lunitik

Buddhism in the west is not really about religion - re-binding into the one - it is more about psychological health. In reality, the teachings are about realizing the Spirit, but it is a direct teaching rather than an assertion of what will be found. There is the statement of the leaves in his hands. Buddha asserts that all he has taught is those leaves, all he knows are the leaves on a given tree, all there is to know is throughout the forest.

By saying that my assertion that Baha'u'llah has taught against Divine Union is hogwash, you seem to be asserting that Baha'u'llah has taught this. I would be interested in viewing any quotes you might have to this end, for by my reading it seems Baha'u'llah is saying that our ultimate peak is merely being in the presence of God. Arthra, a well read Baha'i, has even asserted that this seems to go directly against Baha'u'llahs teachings. In fact, this seems to be his complaint with the Sufi teachings. Of course, there are statements such as "seek the light from wherever it eminates" and thus Baha'is are free to read about such experiences and thus realize them, but I am not sure it is a direct statement of Baha'u'llah... I would appreciate being shown to be wrong here.

I only speak of my experiences because it is the easiest way to show I am not speaking blindly, those that are well studied dispute things I say based on scholarly views. I am showing that knowing through experience is above any scholarly approach, for scholarship differentiates and thus cannot be truth. I would agree that Baha'u'llah asserts this, for a central teaching is that religion is one.

Lari

Thank you for your good response.

Baha'u'llah states in his book The Seven Valleys And the Four Valleys of the Seventh Valley to be of True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness, the station of dying from self and the living in God. In a state of Absolute Nothingness, there is no one there to be present for God, nor is there God. The word God becomes an allusion.

Or, instead of dividing states of consciousness to four rather than seven, he speaks of The Fourth Valley being the center of the mystery: “He doth what He willeth, ordaineth what He pleaseth.” This is seemingly the state of God, and you have become one with God. The words Asolute Nothingness can also be thought of as an allusion, nevertheless, there is the Union with the Beloved.

The goal of all religions is the same, it is the Union with God, though, in many traditions what is meant by Divine Union is merely one of the many points of development, alchemically it is the conclusion of The Great Work, Qabalistically the formula of 5=6 or God is Man, in Eastern language it is the state of dhyana, or on more generic terms, the state of merging of the subject and the object, the merging of the circle and the cross. What is referred to as enlightenment, Samadhi, Sambodhi or whichever the name we give it, is the merging of the mind with the whole of creation, rather than a given object of concentration, which in many traditions is rightfully named as Divine Union.

Claiming someone to have scholarly knowledge on a religion does not give him great credence, although it is also important to a point. The one and only thing to be deemed should be straight experience, and that shines a million miles.

Yeshua

I think that you may just have found your religion afterall Lunitik

My prayers for you may just have paid off!

You are Buddhist

Many Buddhists regard Jesus as having been a Buddha...I mean the Dalai Lama has great respect for him.

See this website, in which a Buddhist talks about how much he loves the Gospel of Thomas: GOSPEL OF THOMAS: THE BUDDHIST JESUS?

I would suggest though that Jesus was definetly not an Essene or directly influenced by Buddhism. So if there is stark similarity, then it must simply be from similar experiences in the lives of Jesus and Buddha.

Jesus' teachings and background are most heavily influenced by the Pharisees, even though he lambasted them for their hypocrisy.

If you wish me to explain why I believe so I can give you a pm. I have studied the topic in quite some depth, especially Essene Judaism.

LordOfGoblins

All sounds very airy-fairy to me. Man can think he is a God but that doesnt change the fact that I still have to eat sleep and breath air to stay alive. That sought of thing sounds like idle fancy. In any case what is the point in all these spiritual levels and stages if they have no result? Can you directly feel them? Many people claim higher stages of enlightenment however what they have achieved is a higher level of the power of speach and influence over others... Or the ability to train ones mind to allow them to walk on hot coals. This is not spiritual enlightenment but rather something else...

Yeshua

Sorry, I actually wasn't inferring this The teachings are very much aligned with those of Buddha in the Buddhist scriptures, I was simply making sure that people didn't get confused and think these were the Buddha's words

I am happy to hear this and I think that you have hit on many interesting points

I partly agree It is true that in the Baha'i Faith the Manifestation of God has a unique station which cannot be attained by any other human being.

In Christianity Jesus is the Divine Logos...its not that we cannot attain to enlightenment or posses Christ's divine understanding, its just that the concept we call "God" or what the Buddhist might call "Dharmakaya" we believe incarnated in the body of Christ. Its the incarnation that cannot be replicated, but we can share fully in Christ's glorified body - as you said - to the extent that we can become "divinised" and become another Christ.

"God became man so that men might become god"...is the old aphorism from the Church Fathers...its very potent...

However I'm not entirely sure that the Christian and Buddhist concepts are that far removed from each other. I perceive a distinction more of degree than of kind.

Christianity teaches that our union with Christ is to be so strong, that we are to become another Christ.

Paul says we posses the "mind of Christ"...is that not akin to Buddhahood? In 1 Corinthians 2:16, Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13 and then makes the statement concerning all believers: “We have the mind of Christ.” Having the mind of Christ means sharing the plan, purpose, and perspective of Christ, and it is something that all believers or all people possess.

You may like this book: Amazon.com: Putting on the Mind of Christ (9781571741738): Jim Marion, Ken Wilber: Books

Its called, "Putting on the Mind of Christ"...the blurb says:

I have always felt that "Christ-mindedness" is a concept near identical to "Buddhahood"...we all posses "luminous mind" according to the Buddha, the ability to become enlightened Buddhas, and we all have "the mind of Christ" according to Jesus Christ.

Some nice similarity

Marion's observation in the book "Putting on the Mind of Christ" is that "we need to realize our divinity, own it, take up the responsibility of it, and live it".

The author writes in Chapter 1:

"...The Kingdom of Heaven was the central theme of Jesus' preaching ministry. By 'the Kingdom of Heaven' Jesus meant a particular level of human conciousness, not a place to which Christians are destined after death...Using Mother Theresa and Jesus as examples, we can see that the two chief characteristics of the nondual conciousness of the Kingdom of Heaven are the lack of separation between God and humans and a lack of separation between human beings..."

Do you not think it odd Lunitik that this Christian author reached the same conclusion near enough that you have just reached?

The author continues:

"...There is an after-death place of love, light, peace and joy that is properly called heaven...Though Jesus acknowledged an after-death state existed, Jesus devoted his preaching, not to that heaven, but to a Kingdom of Heaven that he said was here and now...The single most important thing that Jesus taught was that "The Kingdom of God is within". The Kingdom of God that Jesus preached up and down the land of Israel, day in and day out, throughout his entire ministry, is a Kingdom that you and I can find and see only by going deep within ourselves...It was a Kingdom that could be seen, not with our physical eyes, but with the inner eye of understanding. The goal of the spiritual life, Jesus taught, was to 'seek first' this inner vision of this world..."

Lunitik

Thank you very much for this, coupled with the instruction to "seek light from wherever it may shine", perhaps I am still Baha'i in reality

Truly, this is quite an awesome assessment, it has been a great differentiation factor for me - which faith am I now? Trying to align my words with a given faith that I might partake in a community of like minds. It is difficult and has meant that I have not had much contact with the faithful.

Yeshua

Oops maybe your not a Buddhist I'm going to start praying for you again!

I just want to see you settled. Its good to appreciate the truth in all faiths but i still think that it is better to have a "faith group"

I asked many Baha'is before and they were all adamant that theosis was not part of Baha'i belief.

I see where Lari is coming from though. The Valley of True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness is similar to theosis however there is a key difference...

Wikipedia writes:

In theosis in the East it is said the Seeker join's with God's immortal, Uncreated Energies but not the Essence while in the West it is said we join with the Essence but not God as he is in Himself.

Lunitik

His statements about the Pharasees exactly align with Essene views of them, his ascetic existence aligns, his lack of marrying aligns. Everything known about Jesus aligns with this order. It is also noteworthy to state that while there is no mention of anything like the Trinity in the Torah, it aligns exactly with the Buddhist Trikaya - you seem to have looked at the Trimurti and seen correlations, but this represents the unmanifested father, the manifested son, and the reward for transcending differentiation, the holy spirit.

I would certainly not state that I am Buddhist, for this faith becomes quite complicated the further you delve, truth is so simple but man has this awesome ability to complicate matters when he is unaware of it. I will need to read the Seven and Four Valleys again, but perhaps it will turn out I am actually still Baha'i for I certainly believe in a more balanced life than Buddha teaches - I do not see how monastic or ascetic life can be called balanced, I also dislike the ritual aspects of modern Buddhism.

Yeshua

Yes Buddhism can be somewhat ascetic. Sexual desire is seen as completely taboo if one wishes to reach perfection. Also there is sadly sexism in Buddhism...

The historical Buddha's most famous statements on women came about when his stepmother and aunt, Maha Pajapati Gotami, asked to join the Sangha and become a nun. The Buddha initially refused her request. Eventually he relented, but in doing so he made conditions and a prediction that remain controversial to this day.

according to the canonical texts, before the Buddha allowed Pajapati into the Sangha, she had to agree to eight Garudhammas, or grave rules, not required of men. These are:
•A Bhikkuni (nun) even if she was in the Order for 100 years must respect a Bhikkhu (monk) even of a day's standing.
•A Bhikkuni must reside within 6 hours of traveling distance from the monastery where Bhikkhus reside for advice.
•On Observance days a Bhikkhuni should consult the Bhikkhus.
•A Bhikkhuni must spend rainy season retreats under the orders of both Bhikhus and Bhikkhunis.
•A Bhikkhuni must live her life by both the orders.
•A Bhikkhuni must on two years obtain the higher ordination (Upasampatha) by both Orders.
•A Bhikkhuni cannot scold a Bhikkhu.
•A Bhikkhuni cannot advise a Bhikkhu.

Nuns also have more rules to follow than monks. The Vinaya-pitaka lists about 250 rules for monks and 348 rules for nuns.

Also as I said before the "world as delusion" aspect of Buddhism does not appeal to me.

I have a more positive view of reality. And I don't believe in reincarnation.

Also there's this strange Buddhist teaching that "the Buddha" as a title, can only refer to a man - read this from, "Freeing the Buddha" by Brian Ruhe:

A woman thus, according to the Buddhist scriptures, can never be a "Buddha"...she can become an arhat, a righteous enlightened person but she can never become "THE BUDDHA" of her age...

Consider the fact that in Judaism, which at times could be considered to exhibit antiquated views of women, there were many female prophets - such as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, Isaiah's wife, Sarah etc. - who were thus enlightened teachers of the Jewish people. Sexism is a problem in Buddhist texts. Jewish prophets are the only station comparable to Buddhas in Buddhism. To speak in Buddhist terms then, the prophet Deborah was a Jewish "Buddha" since she was the pre-eminent prophet of Israel in her day and the only judge. As sole Judge she actually was the Head of State of Israel as well as its spiritual leader. She was also the military commander of the Jewish nation.

(Judges were the ancient, divinely appointed rulers of Israel prior to the birth of the monarchy)

To be fair to the Buddha though he lived in an immensely sexist culture. As the book, "What would Buddha do?" explains:

Quote:

"The historical Buddha lived in a tremendously sexist culture, 2,500 years ago. Being a product of that culture, he was not bias-free; he believed an order of nuns would shorten the authority of Buddhism. But he admitted that women could become enlightened"

He was way, way ahead of his time in every way

And the Dhammapada is one of the most profound books I have ever read - its stunning!

cire perdue

"Truly, this is quite an awesome assessment, it has been a great differentiation factor for me - which faith am I now? Trying to align my words with a given faith that I might partake in a community of like minds. It is difficult and has meant that I have not had much contact with the faithful."

I have found that we cannot always get the friends we want in the Baha'i Community. We will not have basic things in common with many. If one is not careful it can be a disappointing experience. We cannot expect to find personal friends in a Baha'i Community where we live that we can even converse with on this level. It is the nature of the time we live in when so few are Baha'is. It is not actually a failing of the Faith, ourselves, or our fellow Baha'is, but perhaps one of our own expectations.

Expectations are a resentment waiting to happen. (AA, Al Anon)

Lunitik

I hope you already read this post, cuz I treated an edit like a quote to correct myself... I had stated Luke 12:27 when intending 9:27

Lunitik

lol... I am supremely settled, I have just not settled into a box... when I try to place myself into a box, differentiation begins again.

To what end?

What Lari alludes to is exactly what Buddhists describe... you have realized you are not anything you thought you were - you are poverty, these attachments were illusions that gave you meaning where there is none. You have found yourself and discovered it is absolute nothingness. To state there are differences is to differentiate and thus oneness returns back into duality.

I think both the East and West are partially correct and partially wrong. It is a complete merging, although your body still exists. While it still exists, it is not you, you do not identify with it, and cease to perceive from its perspective. Saying anything otherwise merely shows dual-mind comprehension, and thus the understanding of someone that has not experienced. There simply ceases to be any notion of other while it can also not be said there is a you at all in this state.

Lunitik

This is central to Buddhist teaching, although Buddha would call expectation a desire.

Lunitik

lol... my clipboard has someone from another forum as the quoted, I just realized.

All instances of Thomas are intended to be directed at Yeshua

Yeshua

Haha I was wondering who this Thomas guy was!!!

Lunitik

There are reasons for this, sexual energy is inherent to enlightenment but all too often it is released at the lowest energy center. It is also an unfortunate ramification of Buddhism merging with various Eastern cultures, monks were forbidden from sex despite nothing of this nature being taught by Buddha. The differentiation of sex would not be supported by Buddha, and indeed Buddha taught females much as Jesus did. I am sure you can see the correlations of what resulted in this as it is inherent to the Christian hierarchy too.

Due to Buddha's mode of teaching and the nature of women, he saw them as incompatible, he relented because it showed himself to differentiate. The method of Buddha is entirely intellectual, it is to arrive at nothingness and realize it is pure compassion or love. The converse of this is seen in Christian and most other schools, you are to become so full of love that it is you, there is nothing else. As 1 John 4:8 states God is love, you become love in these schools. They are as two sides to one coin, but the paths are very different.

Because you are content with the illusion, you are young so it is right that you do not experience such suffering that you lose interest in material existence and devote yourself to spiritual attainment. In time you will begin to see that everything in the material world is not fulfilling you, that every time something is achieved there is something else to do. At this time, you will immerse in scripture - whether it be Christian or other which talks to you more at that time. Perhaps you will never seek to attain spiritually because you are completely content always, but it is usual that through some sickness or contemplation on old age, we begin to see things differently.

You are where you're supposed to be, I do not wish for you to change your mentality unnaturally... it may be that you are not destined to venture deeply into the spiritual - your current endeavors are more like religion as a school subject it seems. You will know if you are called, but you cannot really force it. Buddha attempts to lead us to this state, but it is quite easy to reject his warnings if life is going the way you want still.

I think reincarnation is a dangerous teaching, for it becomes easy to say "well, I'll just attain in the next life", but certainly I think there is a truth to it. We comprise various states of energy, energy cannot be removed, it can only change form. It is better that reincarnation doesn't enter the situation for without it there is a sense of urgency, but this doesn't mean it isn't truth.

This is false, else how can the deva's attain nirvana? Reference the 31 planes of existence. Buddha is an inherent quality within man, and as a title refers to a Bodhisatva, essentially one who takes part in the body of Christ completely.

Lari

We have to remember, that these attachments have a purpose, although only up to a point. All states have a purpose up to a point. Just as Baha'u'llah speaks of healthy love of the self in the first Valley, it is said that even Samadhi has to be cleared for one to become a Manifestation. And after this state has gone through its purpose, we have to climb ever higher to God and beyond, up until the state where nothing exists.

LordofG's, your question is the answer, because it presupposes that no one has experienced these states, and there is no way for me to convince anything, nor am I here to convince anything.

Lunitik

Yes, these higher states can be "felt", you can know you are not experiencing it merely by the thought you are God, however. Within this thought, there is a duality and so you cease to experience the one. This is explained exceptionally well in the Seven Valleys, but you must realize it for yourself to know its truth.

There is, of course, a great danger of feeding the ego if in diversity you maintain a belief that you are God, I think this is what you allude to. There is no question of this when there is a complete merging, but prior to this, there is the opportunity for the worst of delusions. You have also hit the nail on the head when you said you must eat and sleep and breath air if you wish to stay alive, however in this there is an inherent choice. The ultimate choice becomes exactly this, should I stay in the world and assist mankind, or should I depart for home. It is a selfless act to remain while quite selfish to go. Those that stay are called in Buddhism a Bodhicitta.

Good luck on your journey.

Lunitik

Yes, certainly this an old truth, as I have stated, Nirvana means "nothing", moksha and perhaps heaven describe the bliss of Samadhi and yet it is still a something. In Buddhism, the aspect of trikaya which correlates to the Spirit is described as the reward body, which reminds us of Baha'u'llahs statements about justice. As with all expression of the three aspects, however, they are an example of diversity, whereas true understanding must transcend diversity. Even in this, however, nothingness is not strictly true, since this is another extreme, the opposite of somethingness. This begins to venture into the unexplainable however, so I will stop.

Lari

Well yes, that is true, saying nothing exists there is still something, the infinitesimal point that is beyond being and not being, in taoism referred to as the Tao.

Lunitik

We seem to be on the same page

LordOfGoblins

All I can say is
"you need to unlearn what you have learned" - Master Yoda

Lunitik

Actually, you have stated a method of realization, for everything you have learned and accepted can be called a view - indeed including God, you have your own ideas of this word.

I like to picture this as an upside down pyramid, each learned thing is a brick. As you learn more and more, you build out the pyramid, going further and further in the three dimensions from the primal point - the point of union. Try this contemplation for yourself, take away each brick of knowledge you currently have and discover what is remaining. Do not intellectualize, realize, what is this? Remember that every view, every distinction is false, if you think you are finished but there is still something, you are not finished, remove this also.

Yeshua, you might find it interesting to note the correlation to what Christ stated about being as children before we can enter the Kingdom... the quote in the Bible "if you have not known love you have not known God, for God is love" was quite helpful in realizing what was left. Only, what is love? We have our conceptions, but what is it really?

Yeshua

What is love?

Its not something, in my humble opinion, that words can aptly describe. To describe it, you limit it, put in a box, bring it down to your own level.

It has to be experienced. It cannot be explained. Its something which goes far beyond mere compassionate kindness.

The only way I can explain it, and I'd rather not because Love is just love and we all have an intuitive understanding of what it is, is that love is when you desire good for another living being without desiring anything in return

Poor description but as I say some things are better left unexplained.

The Cloud of Unknowing is a classic work of Christian mysticism written in Middle English in the latter half of the 14th century.

The book counsels a young student to seek God, not through knowledge and intellection, but through intense contemplation, motivated by love, and stripped of all thought. This is brought about by putting all thoughts, except the love of God, under a "cloud of forgetting", and thereby piercing God's cloud of unknowing with a "dart of longing love" from the heart. This form of contemplation is not directed by the intellect, but involves spiritual union with God through the heart.

Love, stripped of all thought and dualistic perception, is thus the gateway to the divine, in my opinion Lunitik. Not a love that can be described with human words but a divine love that elludes all comprehension.

The Cloud of Unknowing says:

"For He can well be loved, but he cannot be thought. By love he can be grasped and held, but by thought, neither grasped nor held. And therefore, though it may be good at times to think specifically of the kindness and excellence of God, and though this may be a light and a part of contemplation, all the same, in the work of contemplation itself, it must be cast down and covered with a cloud of forgetting. And you must step above it stoutly but deftly, with a devout and delightful stirring of love, and struggle to pierce that darkness above you; and beat on that thick cloud of unknowing with a sharp dart of longing love, and do not give up, whatever happens."

In a follow-up to The Cloud, called The Book of Privy Counseling, the author characterizes the practice of contemplative unknowing as worshiping God with one's "substance," coming to rest in a "naked blind feeling of being," and ultimately finding thereby that God is one's own being.

This is what Meister Eckhart understood when he exclaimed: "The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love. Your human nature and that of the divine Word are no different.” (Meister Eckhart) "

Eckhart also said:

"There are three things that prevent us from hearing the Eternal Word. The first is corporeality, the second is multiplicity, the third is temporality. If a man had transcended these three things, he would dwell in eternity, he would dwell in the spirit, he would dwell in unity and in the desert and there he would hear the Eternal Word...When all things are reduced to naught in you then you shall see God. The desert of the Godhead where no one is at home. Into the soul's essence no speck can ever fall. If the soul would but stay within, she would have everything. It is its nature to be natureless. Become pure till you neither are nor have this or that; then you are omnipresent and, being neither this nor that, are all things. God expects but one thing of you, and that is that you should come out of yourself in so far as you are a created being and let God be God in you...The 'desert' of contemplation is simply a metaphor to explain the state of emptiness which we experience when we have left all ways, forgotten ourselves".

Mechthild, a Catholic Beguine Mystic of the 12th century, described the inner desert as:

"...The day of my spiritual awakening was the day I saw and knew I saw all things in God and God in all things. You should love nothingness. You should flee somethingness. You should stand alone. And should go to no one. Seeking help from none...and be free from all things...And yet should have nothing yourself...Then you are living in the true desert...beyond all human sensations. There I want to remain, yet want also to circle higher still. Wouldst thou know my meaning? In the desert, Turn toward emptiness, Fleeing the self. Stand alone, Ask no one’s help, And your being will quiet, Free from the bondage of things. Those who cling to the world, Endeavor to free them; Those who are free, praise. Lie down in the Fire, See and taste the Flowing Godhead through thy being; Feel the Holy Spirit Moving and compelling Thee within the Flowing Fire and Light of God. A fish cannot drown in water, A bird does not fall in air. In the fire of creation, God doesn't vanish: The fire brightens. Each creature God made must live in its own true nature; How could I resist my nature, That lives for oneness with God?...At once God revealed himself to my joyless soul, held this book in his right hand, and said: "My dear one, do not be overly troubled. One finds many a professor learned in scripture who actually is a fool in my eyes. And I'll tell you something else: It is a great honor for me with regard to them, and it very much strengthens Holy Christianity That the unlearned tongue, aided by my Holy Spirit, teaches the learned tongue"...I myself am uneducated...Lord, you are my lover, My longing, My flowing stream, My sun, And I am your reflection. And God said to the soul: "I desired you before the world began. I desire you now, As you desire me. And where the desires of two come together There love is perfected. It is my nature that makes me love you often, For I am love itself. It is my longing that makes me love you intensely, For I yearn to be loved from the heart. It is my eternity that makes me love you long, For I have no end "...The vision was not of the flesh; it was so spiritual that only the soul saw it, understood it, and enjoyed it. The body had nothing from it except what it could grasp in its human senses through the nobility of the soul. And this is why the words had to be expressed in human terms...When shall you soar with the feathers of your yearning to the blissful heights?...Effortlessly, Love flows from God into man, Like a bird Who rivers the air Without moving her wings. Thus we move in His world One in body and soul, Though outwardly separate in form..."

In another vision, Mechthild writes:

"...God said to the soul: "I who am Divine am truly in you. I can never be sundered from you: However far we be parted, never can we be separated. I am in you and you are in Me. We could not be any closer. We two are fused into one, poured into a single mould. Thus, unwearied, we shall remain forever. I, God, am your playmate! I will lead the child in you in wonderful ways for I have chosen you. Beloved child, come swiftly to Me for I am truly in you"...As soon as the soul begins to grow the dust of sin falls away and the soul becomes a god with God. Then, what God wills the soul wills. Otherwise, God and soul would not be united in so beautiful a union..."



Richard Lang writes: "As with any true Seer, Eckhart speaks from his own first hand experience, not simply from what he has read or been told to believe. Somehow he awoke to his own true nature, to his innermost Self - the 'desert' that is void of all characteristics, empty of all thingness. (Other words he uses are Aybss, Nothingness) This 'desert of the Godhead' (according to Eckhart) is also Thomas Traherne' 'Capacity', Buddhism's Void or Buddha Nature, and Zen's Original Face. It is the Sufi's Beloved, and the Self of Ramana Maharshi and the Indian Advaita tradition.

When we look into the desert of our true nature, into our very centre, we find there is no-one at home. One's 'self' is absent. This is not an achievement born out of virtue or discipline - it is simply the way things are. At centre there is nobody home - except the Godhead. (As Eckhart puts it so simply, "God's in, I'm out.") Look in the right place (right where you are), in the right way (open-mindedly), and you will see the void that is filled by the world, from your own hands and feet to the furthest star. The desert of our true nature blossoms forth as the living universe. To find ourselves absent like this, clear out of the picture, is a profound relief. A huge burden lifts from our shoulders. This relief and healing, this peace and freedom is everybody's birthright.

The 'soul's essence' is clear like water, like air - no speck of dust can alight here. And nothing and no one can stain it - no matter what we have done, or thought, or felt. Eckhart invites us to wake to this Clear Light, to enjoy the Godhead, to drink from this fountain that never runs dry. It will refresh us. It will also give us eternal life - for this is its nature, which is our nature. In the very midst of our time-bound lives, in our very hearts, abides a timeless place, the mysterious core of us all ."

What is interesting for me is that The Cloud of Unknowing draws on the mystical tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which focuses on the via negativa road to discovering God as a pure entity, beyond any capacity of mental conception and so without any definitive image or form. This same tradition has inspired generations of Catholic mystical searchers from John Scotus Erigena, Nicholas of Cusa and St. John of the Cross to Teilhard de Chardin (the latter two of whom may have been influenced by "The Cloud" itself). Arguably the most important Christian mystic of his age, Pseudo-Dionysius advocated an apophatic (or “imageless”) spirituality anchored in the sheer mystery and unknowability of the Divine. Following Pseudo-Dionysius, this “negative” spirituality that stresses the unknowability and supra-rational darkness and transcendence that prevents us from ever knowing God fully has remained a crucial stream in the mystical heights of the Christian experience. Following Pseudo-Dionysius, mystics such as Meister Eckhart and John of the Cross and — of course — The Cloud of Unknowing all fall within this magnificent vein of spirituality.

As a lover of both John of the Cross and Nicholas of Cusa (whom I quote in my signature) I find their deep connection with, and indeed descent from, The Cloud of Unknowing very interesting. Nicholas of Cusa called God in my signature below, "incomprehensible and inexpressible".

cire perdue

A simple descritpiton of love is being willing to extend yourself for another without any gain to yourself. I am sure there are others, but I apply this a lot.
Children who aren't loved have problems with it. If we grow up with dysfunctional parents we have difficulty viewing God as loving and that has to be unlearned. I am told we learn to love by being loved.

Yeshua

Master Yoda was one wise guy lol

This is at the heart of Christian mysticism. Jesus Christ described it aptly in his Parable of the Jar of Meal:

101 [97]. Jesus said: "The Kingdom of the Father is like a woman carrying a jar full of meal. When she had traveled far along the road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal poured out behind her on the road, without her knowing it and stopping it. When she arrived at the house she put the jar down and found it was empty."

At the start of our spiritual journey, Jesus is telling us that we are "full of knowledge" like the jar, full of ideas about the divine, conceptions, reasonings, thoughts, emotions. We think we know about the Divine. And yet if we travel "far" enough along the spiritual road we hit a crisis point, what Catholics call a "dark night of the soul" when we understand that all our learning has been for naught and realize that we now have to unlearn everything that we have learned. The handle of our jar breaks off, that is, our ego collapses completely as we begin to understand that the divine is incomprehensible if we continue to limit it and drag it down to our dualistic perceptions. God is the unity of opposites, in him all opposites coincide. All our knowledge pours out behind us just like the grain/meal does in the Parable, as we progress like a child in humility and strip ourselves of all the ideas we have built up in the course of our lives. We retrace our steps and become infants again, sucking at the cosmic breast of the Divine until we arrive finally at the Kingdom of God within and find ourselves to be completely empty of all conceptions and knowledge. In this way, we behold God face to face rather than "dimly through a mirror" as Saint Paul said, when we try to concetualize him in human terms and with wordly contradicitions.

Saint John of the Cross called his epic poem, The Dark Night of the Soul, the

"Song of the Soul that Delights in Reaching the Supreme State of perfection, that is, the union with God, by the path of spiritual negation".

The attempt to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God! For he is in his essence as my signature says, as Cusanus said, "Incomprehensible and Inexpressible". So majestic - too majestic for mere mortal words to describe!

Saint John of the Cross described his experiences of Via Negativa (Spiritual Negation) in his "Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation". I am going to quote it in full - its a Classic of Catholic spirituality and teaches us how we must "unlearn" everything we thought we knew about God to reach spiritual maturity.

Verses on the Ecstasy of Deep Contemplation

I entered where there is no knowing,

and unknowing I remained,

all knowledge there transcending.

I

Where no knowing is I entered,
yet when I my own self saw there

without knowing where I rested

great things I understood there,

yet cannot say what I felt there,

since I rested in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.

II

Of peace and of holy good

there was perfect knowing,

in profoundest solitude

the only true way seeing,

yet so secret is the thing

that I was left here stammering,

all knowledge there transcending.


III


I was left there so absorbed,

so entranced, and so removed,

that my senses were abroad,

robbed of all sensation proved,

and my spirit then was moved

with an unknown knowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


IV


He who reaches there in truth

from himself is parted though,

and all that before he knew

seems to him but base below,

his knowledge increases so

that knowledge has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.


V


The higher he climbs however

the less he’ll ever understand,

because the cloud grows darker

that lit the night on every hand:

whoever visits this dark land

rests forever in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.


VI


This knowledge of unknowing

is of so profound a power

that no wise men arguing

will ever supersede its hour:

their wisdom cannot reach the tower

where knowing has an ending,

all knowledge there transcending.

VII


It is of such true excellence

this highest understanding,

no science, no human sense,

has it in its grasping,

yet he who, by self-conquering

grasps knowing in unknowing,

goes evermore transcending.





VIII



And in the deepest sense,

this highest knowledge lies,

of the divine essence,

if you would be wise:

his mercy so it does comprise,

each one leaving in unknowing,

all knowledge there transcending.



John of the Cross also wrote:


“Its source I do not know because it has none.
And yet from this, I know, all sources come,
Although by night.

"I know that no created thing could be so fair
And that both earth and heaven drink from there,
Although by night.

Its radiance is never clouded and in this
I know that all light has its genesis,
Although by night.
......................

The current welling from this fountain's source
I know to be as mighty as its force,
Although by night. " (John of the Cross)



Nicholas of Cusa explained it as, "Learned Ignorance".

Read:

The physical senses are a type of cognitive faculty, which reveals an object of knowledge through direct contact. Conceptual understanding is another cognitive faculty, which discovers what the object of knowledge is through the cognitive processes of discerning, comparing, and enumerating. It operates based upon the principle of non-contradiction. The world is presented in multiplicity and diversity.

God is, however, one and surpasses or transcends all contradictions. In the infinite realm of God, diversity and multiplicity are one.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa further wrote:

“The absolute, Divine Mind, is all that is in everything that is... Divinity is the enfolding and unfolding of everything that is. Divintiy is in all things in such a way that all things are in divinity... There is only one mirror without flaw: the Divine, in whom what is revealed is received as it is. For this mirror is not essentially different from any existing thing. Rather in every existing thing it is that which is: it is the universal form of being...The human mind is the all of its dreams... Mind itself supposing itself to encompass, survey and comprehend all things thus concludes that it is in everything and everything is in it... whatever is found in creatures is found in the Divine...We are, as it were, a human deity. Humans are also the universe, but not absolutely since we are human. Humanity is therefore a microcosm, or in truth, a human universe. Thus humanity itself encloses both God and the universe in its human power... Humanity will find that it is not a diversity of creeds, but the very same creed which is everwhere proposed... There cannot but be one wisdom....” (Nicholas of Cusa)

Lunitik

I did not intend for that post to be intellectualized...

You have essentially tried to explain it through the conceptions of others, these are merely words however, they attempt to convey something beautiful but as soon as you apply it to words it ceases to be love, it is now subject to interpretation. Not only this, but the pyramid contemplation was intended to be done first, once you are at the point of the pyramid, if still nothing has happened this statement is quite useful.

Religion is simply not intelligible, all that can be done intelligibly is to point towards the goal but you must discover what is being pointed at for yourself. I specifically said that if there is anything left when removing every brick, you are not done... you have returned with your construction of a wall...

Yeshua

Well, I wasn't intellectualizing God or the Divine in my post, I referenced quotes which speak of how we CAN'T intellectualize God or the Divine. I merely quoted from a variety of sources which correlate with the experience you describe, of Unlearning with reference to the Divine. You were speaking about abandoning all knowledge and learning to approach the Divine and so I gathered together some quotations about the same thing.

I also wrote some of my own reflections on the concept, as you have done repeatedly above.

If this displeases you then I apologize.

All your above posts contain "intellectualizations" on your part, you intellectualize the concept of unlearning for example with the pyramid analogy. Are you not thus being a tad hypocritical? I'm not one to suggest such things, but...just flagging it up...

Those quotes are not just "words" Lunitik. They are peoples' experiences of the Divine, of knowing God by unknowing. That is something quite different. You should show more respect.

They are equally as valid as your own, and mine - for that matter. You speak much of how the Buddha intellectualizes and explains the concept in the Dhammapada - so why do you have a problem with me quoting other mystics who elucidate the same thing? The way the Buddha's experience aids your self-knowledge, they aid me in my own spiritual quest.

I get what you are saying, but it is hypocritical given all your own references to Buddha.