Buddhists and reincarnation?

[theist]

It is very confusing trying to understand what the Buddhists mean by reincarnation since they deny the existence of the self beyond the subtle material platform.

 

Since they deny the existence of the self what could possibly reincarnate?

 

 

SB 1.3.32 - Beyond this gross conception of form is another, subtle conception of form which is without formal shape and is unseen, unheard and unmanifest. The living being has his form beyond this subtlety, otherwise he could not have repeated births.

SB 1.3.33 - Whenever a person experiences, by self-realization, that both the gross and subtle bodies have nothing to do with the pure self, at that time he sees himself as well as the Lord.

[suchandra]

 

It is very confusing trying to understand what the Buddhists mean by reincarnation since they deny the existence of the self beyond the subtle material platform.

 

Since they deny the existence of the self what could possibly reincarnate?

Since our government is strongly supporting Buddhism - they think that the false ego consisting of material elements is transmigrating as long one has material desires. As soon you free yourself from material hankerings you become "void" and reincarnation stopps.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Since our government is strongly supporting Buddhism - they think that the false ego consisting of material elements is transmigrating as long one has material desires. As soon you free yourself from material hankerings you become "void" and reincarnation stopps.

Good explanation!! Sounds reasonable enough (from my meager understanding of the Buddhist perspective).

[CCC]

 

 

TEXT 26

 

 

atha cainam nitya-jatam

nityam va manyase mrtam

tathapi tvam maha-baho

nainam socitum arhasi

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

atha--if, however; ca--also; enam--this soul; nitya-jatam--always born; nityam--forever; va--either; manyase--so think; mrtam--dead; tatha api--still; tvam--you; maha-baho--O mighty-armed one; na--never; enam--about the soul; socitum--to lament; arhasi--deserve.

 

TRANSLATION

 

If, however, you think that the soul is perpetually born and always dies, still you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

 

PURPORT

 

There is always a class of philosophers, almost akin to the Buddhists, who do not believe in the separate existence of the soul beyond the body. When Lord Krsna spoke the Bhagavad-gita, it appears that such philosophers existed, and they were known as the Lokayatikas and Vaibhasikas. These philosophers maintained that life symptoms, or soul, takes place at a certain mature condition of material combination. The modern material scientist and materialist philosophers also think similarly. According to them, the body is a combination of physical elements, and at a certain stage the life symptoms develop by interaction of the physical and chemical elements. The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. Currently, many pseudo-religions--now becoming fashionable in America--are also adhering to this philosophy, as well as to the nihilistic nondevotional Buddhist sects.

Even if Arjuna did not believe in the existence of the soul--as in the Vaibhasika philosophy--there would still have been no cause for lamentation. No one laments the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stops discharging his prescribed duty. On the other hand, in modern science and scientific warfare, so many tons of chemicals are wasted for achieving victory over the enemy. According to the Vaibhasika philosophy, the so-called soul or atma vanishes along with the deterioration of the body. So, in any case, whether Arjuna accepted the Vedic conclusion that there is an atomic soul, or whether he did not believe in the existence of the soul, he had no reason to lament. According to this theory, since there are so many living entities generating out of matter every moment, and so many of them are being vanquished at every moment, there is no need to grieve for such an incidence. However, since he was not risking rebirth of the soul, Arjuna had no reason to be afraid of being affected with sinful reactions due to his killing his grandfather and teacher. But at the same time, Krsna sarcastically addressed Arjuna as maha-bahu, mighty-armed, because He, at least, did not accept the theory of the Vaibhasikas, which leaves aside the Vedic wisdom. As a ksatriya, Arjuna belonged to the Vedic culture, and it behooved him to continue to follow its principles.

[theist]

From Lama Yeshe (14th Dalai Lama)

 

 

[...] Buddhist schools on the whole accept the person itself as a concept, a nominal construct. Many Buddhist however believe that underlying the nominal construct there must be some real reference, some real person who should be findable under ultimate analysis.

 

On the whole much of the Buddhist position is to identify the person with either the continuum of the consciousness or the aggregates. In the case of the Cittamatra school they posit a continuum of consciousness which enjoys a stable foundation, the alayavijnana, the fundamental store consciousness. All of these schools basically share a commonality that is to suggest there must be a substantially real person who should be findable when one seeks for the reference behind the term and concept of the person. This suggests that these Buddhist schools are not entirely content with the notion of a person as a mere construct, a mere nominal reality. Rather they seek some kind of objective grounding to what a person really is, to find some kind of objective reference to the term and concept of personhood.

 

 

However, Madhyamika thinkers such as Candrakirti and Buddhapalita rejected all of that and argued that there is no real need to seek for some kind of reference for our concept of person and self and find some kind of objective reality that has a degree of intrinsic existence or identity. From Candrakirti and Buddhapalita’s point of view the very urge to seek for some kind of objective grounding in this manner suggests a clinging to some kind of reified reality. Candrakirti argued that this way of looking at the world stems from a belief in some kind of inherent existence of things. If things enjoyed inherent reality that means they enjoy a degree of independence. If things enjoyed independent existence then that would contradict their fundamental nature which is the interdependent nature of reality. The fact those things come into being as the result of many causes and conditions shows they lack independent existence. Candrakirti rejected that even a person has any intrinsic reality. The person is a nominal construct.

 

 

This is not to suggest that a person or self does not exist but a person and self do exist. They posses a nominal reality, a construct. But it is a construct that comes into being in dependence upon the basis of designation such as the physical and mental aggregates. Neither body nor consciousness nor the continuum of consciousness nor the aggregate of mind and body can be said to be the person. The person is something dependent on these bases of designation.[...]

 

 

I never knew there was this most fundamental dissagreement between Buddhist schools on the nature of the self. Hopeful.

[suchandra]

 

From Lama Yeshe (14th Dalai Lama)

 

 

 

I never knew there was this most fundamental dissagreement between Buddhist schools on the nature of the self. Hopeful.

Funny thing also, when seeing how they worship Lord Buddha like 24h offerings of vegetarian food, bathing, flowers, putting to rest - almost the same way Vaishnavas worship their Deities of Radha-Krishna.

Pre-Buddhist archaeological discoveries of Zhang Zhung the ancient empire of Tibet are quite interesting and point to vedic origin of Krishna worship.

http://www.zhangzhung.org/article02.htm

Only problem, the explorers are Buddhists and can hardly relate the finds to a believe in a personal God, before Buddhism took hold in Tibet.

 

Mount Kailash, Lake Manasarovar, center of the ancient pre-Buddhist kingdom of Zhang Zhung ( Shang Shung, Shangri la)

Hindus and Buddhists believe climbing Kailash is wrong and no one has ever done so to anyone's knowledge.

[Vigraha]

 

Technically Buddhists are atheists

 

[suchandra]

 

 

Technically Buddhists are atheists

 

Yes atheists, the so-called religionists were falsely using the Vedas to justify such violent acts as meat-eating, and Lord Buddha came to lead the fallen people away from such a false interpretation of the Vedas. Also, for the atheists Lord Buddha preached atheism so that they would follow him and thus be tricked into devotional service to Lord Buddha, or Krsna. This technics seems to be presently totally lost in the heads of the Vaishnavas, how to trick fallen souls of this age to adopt the chanting of the Holy Name. Present Vaishnavas should step forward and not remain stuck all day to evaluate people's hang up but actually to free fallen souls from this material existence.

[yogesh]

 

Funny thing also, when seeing how they worship Lord Buddha like 24h offerings of vegetarian food, bathing, flowers, putting to rest - almost the same way Vaishnavas worship their Deities of Radha-Krishna.

Pre-Buddhist archaeological discoveries of Zhang Zhung the ancient empire of Tibet are quite interesting and point to vedic origin of Krishna worship.

http://www.zhangzhung.org/article02.htm

Only problem, the explorers are Buddhists and can hardly relate the finds to a believe in a personal God, before Buddhism took hold in Tibet.

 

Mount Kailash, Lake Manasarovar, center of the ancient pre-Buddhist kingdom of Zhang Zhung ( Shang Shung, Shangri la)

Hindus and Buddhists believe climbing Kailash is wrong and no one has ever done so to anyone's knowledge.

 

Why is it wrong to climb Mt. Kailash??

 

Just curious and interested to know why??

 

thanks

 

Hare Krsna/Krishna

 

Jay Sirla Prabhupada

[theist]

 

Yes atheists, the so-called religionists were falsely using the Vedas to justify such violent acts as meat-eating, and Lord Buddha came to lead the fallen people away from such a false interpretation of the Vedas. Also, for the atheists Lord Buddha preached atheism so that they would follow him and thus be tricked into devotional service to Lord Buddha, or Krsna. This technics seems to be presently totally lost in the heads of the Vaishnavas, how to trick fallen souls of this age to adopt the chanting of the Holy Name. Present Vaishnavas should step forward and not remain stuck all day to evaluate people's hang up but actually to free fallen souls from this material existence.

Here Here!!

I remember some conversation from why back when where Srila Prabhupada was either at a Buddhist temple in Japan or just speaking about one and said the same thing, how their method of worship was exactly the same.

 

Atheists should become Buddhists.

 

All respects to the shaktyavesa avatar known as Lord Buddha.

 

 

 

 

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

 

Technically Buddhists are atheists

 

 

 

And they are honest with themselves and others.

 

Many who call themselves "Vaishnava" or "Christian" have little or no faith and are, in effect, atheists.

 

Who's better?

[Inedible]

The only problem I have with talking about God is that it seems like no two people actually agree about who and what God is.

[sopatel]

I agree with Inedible ...

we stopped talkign about God and prefer proof and arguement and refuse to leave our self righteousness, this includes myself though I am working hard at improving this.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

[shiva]

 

From Lama Yeshe (14th Dalai Lama)

 

 

 

I never knew there was this most fundamental dissagreement between Buddhist schools on the nature of the self. Hopeful.

 

I guess you have or had the view of buddhism which most people in the west and most devotees have i.e. they think buddhism is essentially monolithic in it's beliefs i.e atheistic and similar to mayavada.

 

In reality there are 2 major basic different types of buddhism (although there is a lot of mixing of the two creating a 3rd type, tantrayana buddhism) in the same way that there are 2 major basic types of vedic religion. In the vedic world there are personalists and impersonalists. The personalists are the vaishnavas and some shaivite sects, some shaktas and some smartas. The impersonalists are the sankarites who are mostly the majority of shaivites, smartas and shaktas. In the buddhist world there are 2 major basic categories, the Mahayana and Hinayana, the Mahayana are based upon personalist and theistic teachings and the Hinayana are based upon impersonalist and atheistic teachings. Probably the most important Mahayana scripture is the Nirvana or Mahaparinirvana Sutra which is where Siddhartha Gautama ("the buddha") purports to give his final and highest teaching. In it he teaches that the impersonal atheistic teachings are false, here is a bit from Wikipedia on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra

 

 

 

The Buddha on his eternal and blissful ultimate nature as he stands on the brink of physical death:

 

" ... if you perceive things truly, you will become free from attachment, separated from them, you will indeed be liberated. I have well crossed the watery waste of existence. I abide in bliss, having transcended suffering, therefore I am devoid of unending desire, I have eliminated attachment and gained Liberation [moksha]. There is no old age, sickness or death for me, my life is forever without end. I proceed burning bright like a flame. You must not think that I shall cease to exist. Consider the Tathagata [i.e. Buddha] to be like [Mount] Sumeru: though I shall pass into Nirvana here [i.e. physically die], that supreme bliss is my true nature [dharmata]." (Tibetan version)

 

"The Buddha-Tathagatas are not eternally extinguished in Nirvana like the heat of an iron ball that is quickly extinguished when cast into water. Moreover, it is thus: just as the heat of an iron ball is extinguished when thrown into water, the Tathagata is likewise; when the immeasurable mental afflictions have been extinguished, it is similar to when an iron ball is cast into water - although the heat is extinguished, the substance / nature of the iron remains. In that way, when the Tathagata has completely extinguished the fire of the mental afflictions that have been accumulated over countless aeons, the nature of the diamond Tathagata permanently endures - not transforming and not diminishing." (Fa-xian version)

 

On his teaching of "non-Self" (the "worldly self", which ultimately does not exist eternally, but obscures the True Self) and the tathagata-garbha:

 

"When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech, and they are free from doubts.

 

"When I have taught that the tathagata-garbha is empty, fools meditatively cultivate [the notion] that it is extinction [uccheda], subject to destruction and imperfect. The wise know that it is [actually] unchanging, stable and eternal."

 

" ... just as cow's milk is delicious, so too is the taste of this [Nirvana] Sutra similar to that. Those who abandon the teaching given in this sutra concerning the tathagata-garbha are just like cattle. For example, just as people who intend to commit suicide will cause themselves extreme misery, similarly you should know that those ungrateful people who reject the tathagata-garbha and teach non-Self cause themselves extreme misery." (Tibetan version)

 

"And, also, the wise person clearly thinks: "For what reason do beings speak about the Self? Why is it that beings speak about the Self? If this Self exists, it must be [either] one or many. If it is one, how can there be such as Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Sudras, humans and gods, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, or big and small, or old age or the prime of life? For this reason, I know that the Self is not one. If the Self is many, how can we say that the Self of the being is one and all-pervading, knowing no bounds? Be it one or many, in either case, there is no Self." (He is not saying there is no self, he is pointing out the problems of saying the self is one or saying the self is many. Mahaprabhu agrees, the self is neither one nor many, the self is one and many. - shiva)

 

In contrast to the illusory, conditioned, worldly self, the Self of the Buddha is real and enduring: "The Tathagata's Body is not causally conditioned. Because it is not causally conditioned, it is said to have the Self; if it has the Self, then it is also Eternal, Blissful and Pure." (Dharmakshema).

 

"The Tathagata also teaches, for the sake of all beings, that, truly, there is the Self in all phenomena." (Dharmakshema).

 

On Nirvana:

 

"Noble son, there is 'Nirvana', but that is not Maha-nirvana [i.e. Great Nirvana]. Why is Nirvana not Maha-nirvana? The elimination of the mental afflictions [kleshas] without having seen the Buddha-dhatu [buddha-principle, Buddha-nature] is called 'Nirvana' and not Maha-nirvana. Thus, because [= when] a person has not seen the Buddha-dhatu, there is [for that person] no eternity nor Self, although there is bliss and utter purity. Hence, even though the mental afflictions have been eliminated, it should not be called 'Maha-nirvana'. When one has seen the Buddha-dhatu and eliminated the mental afflictions, that is called 'Maha-parinirvana'. Because of having seen the Buddha-dhatu [i.e. the dharmakaya or dhammakaya], it is said to be Eternal, the Self, Blissful and utterly Pure, and therefore that elimination of the mental afflictions is said to be Maha-parinirvana." (Dharmaksema version)

 

"It is not the case that the inherent nature of Nirvana did not primordially exist, but now exists. If the inherent nature of Nirvana did not primordially exist, but does now exist, then it would not be free from taints, nor would it be eternally [nitya] present in nature ... [Nirvana] is primordially existent and does not just come into existence in the present. Because of the obscuring darkness of the mental afflictions, beings do not see it. The Tathagata, endowed with omniscient awareness [sarvajna-jnana], lights the lamp of insight with his skill-in-means and causes bodhisattvas to perceive the Eternal, the Bliss, the Self and the Purity of Nirvana." (Dharmaksema version) (Translations based on Stephen Hodg

 

Another important scripture for the Mahayana school is the Lotus Sutra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Buddha

 

Most people outside of Asia think buddhism is strictly atheistic and impersonal, this is caused by a similar history which has caused mayavada teachings to be seen as representing vedic thought for many people outside of india i.e. the atheistic impersonal buddhist schools have been the ones who have spread their teachings worldwide, (Vivekananda and the vedanta society spread mayavada teachings around the world before bhakti) they are mostly made up of so-called intellectuals, while the common mass of buddhists in asia are more personlist and theistic in their beliefs. The Dalai Lama doesn't help the situation by claiming that buddhists are atheistic. The tibetan schools are tantric schools which are a mixture of mahayana and hinayana, but mostly mahayana.

[theist]

Interesting. I have heard this before but not often and it was always a minority opinion.

 

I can see where the individuality of the soul is indicatede hoiwever I don't find any indication of the acceptance of the Supreme Soul which is essential in Theism.

 

Anything further Shiva?

[shiva]

 

Interesting. I have heard this before but not often and it was always a minority opinion.

 

I can see where the individuality of the soul is indicatede hoiwever I don't find any indication of the acceptance of the Supreme Soul which is essential in Theism.

 

Anything further Shiva?

 

 

From Wikipedia

 

 

The idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya (“body of Truth”) of the Buddha himself, is promulgated in a number of Mahayana sutras and in various tantras as well. Occasionally, this principle is presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.

 

In the Mahavairocana Sutra, the essence of Vairocana is said to be symbolised by the letter “A”, which is claimed to reside in the hearts of all beings and of which Buddha Vairocana declares, in (The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, p. 331), “[the mystic letter ‘A’] is placed in the heart location:

 

it is Lord and Master of all,

and it pervades entirely

all the animate and inanimate.

‘A’ is the highest life-energy …

 

The text refers to Vairocana Buddha as the "Bhagavat" ("Blessed One," a term traditionally linked in Indian discourse with "the Divine"], "Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana” (p. 355).

 

The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, characterizes Vairocana as follows:

 

He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.

 

Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as “Samantabhadra Buddha”) declares of itself:

 

I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.

—The Supreme Source, p. 157

 

From Banglapedia

 

 

Adi Buddha a Buddhist deity, also referred to as Adinath (God, Creator, First Saviour) and Swayambhu Lokanath (He who saves the world through self-incarnation) or Swayambhu (Self-incarnated Lord). In Chinese Adi Buddha is called 'Pen-Chu-Fo' or 'Seng-Chu-Fo' which means 'First Buddha' or 'Progenitor Lord'. In Tibetan he is called 'Don Pohi-Sans-Ragyas' which means 'He is the Buddha of all Buddhas' or 'Machog-Gi-Don Pohi Sansa-Ragyas' which means 'He is the self-incarnated first Buddha' or 'Thogamahi-Sans-Ragyas' which means 'He is the first true Buddha'.

 

 

The Buddha did not include the divine in his teachings (according to Hinayana scriptures, in the Mahayana scriptures the divine is included in the teachings of Sakyamuni - shiva) buddhism is thus generally called an atheistic religion. The mahayana cult, however, introduced the divine in the form of Adi Buddha. According to this cult, Adi Buddha is the cause of creation, thunder, and of the void. He is described as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The idea of Adi Buddha is believed to have originated in Bengal, from where it spread to other parts of India, Nepal and Tibet.

 

The cult of Adi Buddha was at first accepted by the Kalachakrayana group of the vajrayana sect belonging to the Mahayana branch of Buddhism. The principal temple situated on the Swayambhu Mountain near Kathmandu has been consecrated to Adi Buddha. According to a legend narrated in Swayambhupurana, Adi Buddha was first manifested in the shape of a flame. Buddhist creation myths describe how Adi Buddha created the Avalokiteshvar, Maheshvar, Brahma, Narayan, Saraswati, the moon, the sun, the wind, the earth, and the ocean.

 

Adi Buddha is considered to be the incarnate symbol of the void and the possessor of five kinds of virtue from which five kinds of meditation originated. From these meditations the five medidating Buddhas appeared. When Adi Buddha is represented in human form, he is called Vajradhar. Representations of Adi Buddha Vajradhar show him in a seated position, with his legs crossed in a meditative vajrasan or in the sitting posture known as vajraparyanka. With his bodhisattva crown, fine dress and jewels, the deity looks like an Indian prince. His two hands are folded across his chest. He holds a lightning bolt in his right hand and a bell in the left.

 

Vajradhar has also been represented as a pair, especially when he is paired with power. This power of Vajradhar is named 'prajnaparamita'. These single and paired images have been variously explained. For example, the single image symbolizes the void, while the paired image symbolizes enlightened intellect; one is the living soul, the other is the eternal soul, etc. [bhikhhu Sunithananda]

[theist]

 

The idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya (“body of Truth”) of the Buddha himself, is promulgated in a number of Mahayana sutras and in various tantras as well. Occasionally, this principle is presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.

 

I still don't see the theism. This sounds more like Sankara's Advaita then voidist Buddhism but the difference is split hair.

[shiva]

 

I still don't see the theism. This sounds more like Sankara's Advaita then voidist Buddhism but the difference is split hair.

 

Well, no. What is being described is theism, where Buddha and others such as Vajradhara and Vairochana are the personal manifestations (avatars) of the "awakened mind" of the dharmadhatu (brahman).

 

 

The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, characterizes Vairocana as follows:

 

He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.

 

Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as “Samantabhadra Buddha”) declares of itself:

 

I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.

—The Supreme Source, p. 157

 

 

 

What about the rest of what I provided? They are all a part of single belief system, which is clearly theistic. If you think those verses from those sutras are advaitin and not theistic, then you are not understanding what they are saying, or you do not know what qualifies as theism and what qualifies as advaita. Advaita does not believe in a God who is different then the jiva, Mahayana clearly believes in permanence of the soul.

 

 

"The Buddha-Tathagatas are not eternally extinguished in Nirvana like the heat of an iron ball that is quickly extinguished when cast into water. Moreover, it is thus: just as the heat of an iron ball is extinguished when thrown into water, the Tathagata is likewise; when the immeasurable mental afflictions have been extinguished, it is similar to when an iron ball is cast into water - although the heat is extinguished, the substance / nature of the iron remains. In that way, when the Tathagata has completely extinguished the fire of the mental afflictions that have been accumulated over countless aeons, the nature of the diamond Tathagata permanently endures - not transforming and not diminishing."

 

In the above is a refutation of advaitin doctrine. For the advaitins the self is extinguished when it attains moksa, it merges back into brahman, but the above is saying the self is not extinguished, the mental afflictions of the self are extinguished while the self is permanent.

[krishnadasa]

In the age of Kali, mostly people will be of low or no intelligence and they talk all foolish and nonsence

[krishnadasa]

 

I still don't see the theism. This sounds more like Sankara's Advaita then voidist Buddhism but the difference is split hair.

 

Guess Budhists think after many lives of Vipasana everybody becomes Budha i.e God,, its not I am God Philosophy rather, I can become God philosphy as you said split hair difference to advaita...

[lokeshvara]

Namaste All,

 

I sometimes visit this forum due to an interest in Hindu Dharma but decided to join once i saw this topic as I am a practicing Mahayana buddhist. I certainly hope my posting here is ok. I am a firm believer in dialogue and our traditions share many similarities.

 

in regards to the first question about reincarnation. we usually don't call it that but rebirth instead because everything is changing our being and existance is not static. I am not the same person today as i was five years ago etc. therefore reincarnation can't work but rebirth or continuation of the stream of consciousness. Perhaps buddhists are just playing with semantics here. anyway, what is reborn? Some one has already posted the Alayavijnana, this is acurate. this is the deepest level of conscousness which contains our karmic roots, deepest seeds of what we commonly call self and tathagata-garbha (our inherent buddha nature)

 

as for being athiestic this is also not true. buddhist cosmology is filled with gods and goddesses, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. all these beings are in constant interaction with life in the universe.

 

I'll stop for now but I look forward to some great discussions

[theist]

Of course you are welcome to post here. Welcome Lokeshvara.

 

 

as for being athiestic this is also not true. buddhist cosmology is filled with gods and goddesses, bodhisattvas, and buddhas. all these beings are in constant interaction with life in the universe.

Yes I know the thinking but this is not what I understand as Theism. Theism accepts the eternal existence of one Supreme Lord over all others whose personal identity is the Cause of all other causes and not that His manifestation appeared from the Brahman or some void state, becoming personal and then merging back into the Brahman or some void state at liberation or enlightenment.

 

IOW's the worship of Lord Brahma would not be true theism.

[lokeshvara]

hiya Theist,

 

thanks for the welcome and clarification. yes according to what you have said most buddhism would not fall into the theistic category. there are some mahayana/ vajrayana texts that may not be too far from your understanding. not exactly the same though.

 

at least according to most texts buddhism is different from theism however i wonder how similar they are on a practitioner level. a large percentage of mahayana practice is bhakti oriented. and while i can not speculate what goes on in the hearts of other practitioners, i would hazzard to say that at least in some places buddhism is theistic.

 

blessings /]\

[theist]

 

hiya Theist,

 

thanks for the welcome and clarification. yes according to what you have said most buddhism would not fall into the theistic category. there are some mahayana/ vajrayana texts that may not be too far from your understanding. not exactly the same though.

 

at least according to most texts buddhism is different from theism however i wonder how similar they are on a practitioner level. a large percentage of mahayana practice is bhakti oriented. and while i can not speculate what goes on in the hearts of other practitioners, i would hazzard to say that at least in some places buddhism is theistic.

 

blessings /]\

 

Yes I understand what you mean. The form of practice like chanting mantras of respect and worship to a murti of Lord Buddha on an altar, offering foodstuffs, flowers and incense are very much the same as those engaged in bhakti. And even the sentiments that manifest in the minds and hearts of the practioners is similar.

 

But they do divide dramatically. There is bhakti in practice and then there is pure Bhakti which takes place after liberation from ignorance. The genuine Vaisnava practices bhakti to attain pure Bhakti to the Lord.

 

This is so vastly different than practicing the forms of bhakti with the goal in mind of eventually losing the self or becoming the object of one's own worship by merging into the Deity of one's worship.

 

Vaisnavas pratice serving the Lord with the goal being to serve the Lord purely, eternally and without expectation of reward including liberation from samsara.

 

Hare Krsna

[suchandra]

 

Yes I understand what you mean. The form of practice like chanting mantras of respect and worship to a murti of Lord Buddha on an altar, offering foodstuffs, flowers and incense are very much the same as those engaged in bhakti. And even the sentiments that manifest in the minds and hearts of the practioners is similar.

 

But they do divide dramatically. There is bhakti in practice and then there is pure Bhakti which takes place after liberation from ignorance. The genuine Vaisnava practices bhakti to attain pure Bhakti to the Lord.

 

This is so vastly different than practicing the forms of bhakti with the goal in mind of eventually losing the self or becoming the object of one's own worship by merging into the Deity of one's worship.

 

Vaisnavas pratice serving the Lord with the goal being to serve the Lord purely, eternally and without expectation of reward including liberation from samsara.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

Prabhupāda: Here we just say, we know, just like we, we are devotee of Lord Buddha, keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare. We glorify Lord Buddha because we know what is Buddha, sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. So we know perfectly that he is incarnation of Krishna, but those who are cheated by Buddha, from their point of view I want to know what is their perspective.

............they did not believe in God. So, but He is God, He is God; therefore he says, “What I say, you believe.’’ That means He is cheating them..........So the father’s cheating is not cheating, but from external point of view it is cheating. You want something, I give something. That is cheating. But that cheating is good for you. When father cheats the child, it is good for the child, but it is cheating. Therefore cheating is not always bad....Similarly, God is there—Buddha—but they are thinking that they don’t believe in God. This is cheating. God is there. They are worshiping Lord Buddha exactly as we worship Krishna. Then is it not the same? Then how do they say they don’t believe in God? They are made to believe in God in a different way. That is cheating, and it is good for them. That is written in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, sammohāya sura-dviṣām [SB 1.3.24].

 

Room Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Vṛndāvana, March 16, 1974

"So these things can be understood by the devotees. Although he decried Vedic authority, still, he is worshiped. Keśava dhṛta- buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa. This is the understanding of the devotees. They know everything perfectly well, what is what. They know Śaṅkarācārya, what he is. Śaṅkarācārya is the incarnation of Lord Śaṅkara, Lord Śiva. Lord Śiva. Vaiṣṇavānāṁ yathā śambhuḥ. He is the topmost Vaiṣṇava. So the devotees know that Śaṅkarācārya was at heart a Vaiṣṇava, but he had to preach like avaiṣṇava because he had to drive away Buddhism from India. That was the mission. So therefore he made something, compromise, with the Buddhist philosophies. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said He wanted to accept Vedas against Buddhism, who did not accept the Vedas, but He preached this atheism under the shadow of Vedas. He said therefore that veda nā māniyā buddha haila nāstika, vedāśraye vāda nāstika ke adhika. So these are the discussion. One has to learn very cautiously how, what is the purpose of, why Lord Buddha came, why Lord Śiva and Śaṅkarācārya came, why other ācāryas came, why Caitanya Mahāprabhu came. It requires thorough study under able guidance. Then one can understand."

 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 6.2.16

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Vṛndāvana, September 19, 1975

"You may follow Christianism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Muhammadanism—it doesn’t matter. The test is how far you have developed love of God. That is the test. If you have developed the sense of love for God, then it is to be understood that you have actually followed the religious principle. Not the rituals that go in a hectic way to a temple or to a mosque or to a church, and as a matter of formalities you pay something and come back and do all nonsense of things. That is not religion. Religion is how far you have… Just like in the same way a man is supposed to be great. How? He is considered a great man if he has got riches or he has got knowledge or he has got influence or he has got beauty, so many things. So similarly, how a man can be tested that he is a man of religious principles? The test is that whether he has developed love of God. Then he is religious. Just see how nice definition. Is there any nicer definition of religion than it is stated in the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam? Can you say? The one word, sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmaḥ, that is the best kind of religious principle to be followed, by which one can develop love of God, yato bhaktir adhokṣaje."

 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.2.6

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

London, August 26, 1971