Buddhism Is An Education - Not A Religion

[Ashvatama]

This is a REAL genuin Guru

 

 

 

 

<CENTER>

The Authorised understanding of Lord Buddha

 

Lord Buddha As mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

</CENTER>

 

tataù kalau sampravåtte

sammohäya sura-dviñäm

buddho nämnäïjana-sutaù

kékaöeñu bhaviñyati

 

 

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

 

tataù—thereafter; kalau—the age of Kali; sampravåtte—having ensued; sammohäya—for the purpose of deluding; sura—the theists; dviñäm—those who are envious; buddhaù—Lord Buddha; nämnä—of the name; aïjana-sutaù—whose mother was Aïjanä; kékaöeñu—in the province of Gayä (Bihar); bhaviñyati—will take place.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

 

PURPORT by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada -

 

 

 

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gayä (Bihar) as the son of Aïjanä, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing.

 

 

 

 

Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization.

 

 

 

 

He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God.

 

 

 

 

Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.

 

 

 

 

Killing of animals before the advent of Lord Buddha was the most prominent feature of the society. People claimed that these were Vedic sacrifices.

 

 

 

 

When the Vedas are not accepted through the authoritative disciplic succession, the casual readers of the Vedas are misled by the flowery language of that system of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

In the Bhagavad-Gita a comment has been made on such foolish scholars (avipaçcitaù). The foolish scholars of Vedic literature who do not care to receive the transcendental message through the transcendental realized sources of disciplic succession are sure to be bewildered.

 

 

 

 

To them, the ritualistic ceremonies are considered to be all in all. They have no depth of knowledge. According to the Bhagavad-Gita (15.15), vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyaù: the whole system of the Vedas is to lead one gradually to the path of the Supreme Lord.

 

 

 

 

The whole theme of Vedic literature is to know the Supreme Lord, the individual soul, the cosmic situation and the relation between all these items. When the relation is known, the relative function begins, and as a result of such a function the ultimate goal of life or going back to Godhead takes place in the easiest manner.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, unauthorized scholars of the Vedas become captivated by the purificatory ceremonies only, and natural progress is thereby checked.

 

 

 

 

To such bewildered persons of atheistic propensity, Lord Buddha is the emblem of theism.

 

 

 

 

He therefore first of all wanted to check the habit of animal-killing. The animal-killers are dangerous elements on the path going back to Godhead. There are two types of animal-killers. The soul is also sometimes called the “animal” or the living being.

 

 

 

 

Therefore, both the slaughterer of animals and those who have lost their identity of soul are animal-killers.

 

 

 

 

Maharaja Parikshit said that only the animal-killer cannot relish the transcendental message of the Supreme Lord.

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore if people are to be educated to the path of Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process of animal-killing as above mentioned.

 

 

 

It is nonsensical to say that animal-killing has nothing to do with spiritual realization. By this dangerous theory many so-called sannyasis have sprung up by the grace of Kali-yuga who preach animal-killing under the garb of the Vedas.

 

 

The subject matter has already been discussed in the conversation between Lord Caitanya and Maulana Chand Kazi Shaheb.

 

 

 

 

The animal sacrifice as stated in the Vedas is different from the unrestricted animal-killing in the slaughterhouse.

 

 

 

 

Because the asuras or the so-called scholars of Vedic literatures put forward the evidence of animal-killing in the Vedas, Lord Buddha superficially denied the authority of the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

This rejection of the Vedas by Lord Buddha was adopted in order to save people from the vice of animal-killing as well as to save the poor animals from the slaughtering process of their big brothers who clamor for universal brotherhood, peace, justice and equity.

 

 

 

 

There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahiàsä was propagated not only in India but also outside the country.

 

 

 

 

Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore cannot reject Vedic philosophy.

 

 

 

 

But he rejected it outwardly because the sura-dviña, or the demons who are always envious of the devotees of Godhead, try to support cow-killing or animal-killing from the pages of the Vedas, and this is now being done by the modernized sannyäsés.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha had to reject the authority of the Vedas altogether. This is simply technical, and had it not been so he would not have been so accepted as the incarnation of Godhead.

Nor would he have been worshiped in the transcendental songs of the poet Jayadeva, who is a Vaishnava acarya.

 

 

 

 

Lord Buddha preached the preliminary principles of the Vedas in a manner suitable for the time being (and so also did Çaìkaräcärya) to establish the authority of the Vedas.

 

 

 

 

Therefore both Lord Buddha and Acarya Çaìkara paved the path of theism, and Vaishnava Acaryas, specifically Lord Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu, led the people on the path towards a realization of going back to Godhead.

 

 

 

 

We are glad that people are taking interest in the nonviolent movement of Lord Buddha. But will they take the matter very seriously and close the animal slaughterhouses altogether?

 

 

 

 

If not, there is no meaning to the ahiàsä cult.

Çrémad-Bhägavatam was composed just prior to the beginning of the age of Kali (about five thousand years ago), and Lord Buddha appeared about twenty-six hundred years ago.

 

 

 

 

Therefore in the Srimad-Bhagavatam Lord Buddha is foretold. Such is the authority of this clear scripture. There are many such prophecies, and they are being fulfilled one after another.

 

 

 

 

They will indicate the positive standing of Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is without trace of mistake, illusion, cheating and imperfection, which are the four flaws of all conditioned souls.

 

 

 

 

The liberated souls are above these flaws; therefore they can see and foretell things which are to take place on distant future dates. (Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srimad Bhagavatam 1:3:24. text and purport.)

http://www.vedabase.com/

 

 

 

 

[suchandra]

 

Buddhism doesn’t deny our ‘perception’ of what we commonly refer to as matter or ‘the material world’. It just sees this as illusory. Statements like: "this cosmic manifestation is false", imply that there is a perceptual cosmic manifestation, although it is false. So, in my understanding, Buddhism only denies the reality of what we perceive, but not the reality of the percept itself. Since there is a percept, there must at least exist some real ‘underlying mechanism’ that produces it. In this ontological sense, a ‘representation’ of everything in our perceived cosmic manifestation must somehow exist in reality. Ultimately, reality may even be ‘void’ in perceptual terms, but reality must exist.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

Buddhism doesn't only deny what we see perceive with our senses, it denies even Lord Buddha.

 

 

The stance that nothing contingent has any inherent essence forms the basis of the more sweeping 'sunyavada' doctrine. In the Mahayana, this doctrine, without denying their value, denies any essence to even the Buddha's appearance and to the promulgation of the Dhamma itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata

 

 

In other words all the different procedures we find within the temples of Buddhism going on like 54 offerings of bhoga, is only meant to come to the realization that there's nothing.

 

 

Rawson states that: "one potent metaphor for the Void, often used in Tibetan art, is the sky. As the sky is the emptiness that offers clouds to our perception, so the Void is the 'space' in which objects appear to us in response to our attachments and longings."<sup id="cite_ref-Rawson_1991_11_3-0" class="reference">[4]</sup> The Japanese use of the Chinese character signifying Shunyata is also used to connote sky or air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata

 

 

 

Śūnyatā, शून्यता (Sanskrit noun from the adj. sūnya - 'void' ), Suññatā (Pāli; adj. suñña), stong pa nyid (Tibetan), Kuu, 空 (Japanese), Gong-seong, 공성(空性) (Korean), qoɣusun (Mongolian) meaning "Emptiness" or "Voidness", is a characteristic of empirical phenomena arising from the fact (as observed and taught by the Buddha) that the impermanent nature of form means that nothing possesses essential, enduring identity (see anattā). In the Buddha's spiritual teaching, insight into the emptiness of phenomena (Pali: suññatānupassanā) is an aspect of the cultivation of insight (vipassanā-bhāvanā) that leads to wisdom and inner peace. The importance of this insight is especially emphasised in Mahayana Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata

 

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Buddhism doesn’t deny our ‘perception’ of what we commonly refer to as matter or ‘the material world’. It just sees this as illusory. Statements like: "this cosmic manifestation is false", imply that there is a perceptual cosmic manifestation, although it is false. So, in my understanding, Buddhism only denies the reality of what we perceive, but not the reality of the percept itself. Since there is a percept, there must at least exist some real ‘underlying mechanism’ that produces it. In this ontological sense, a ‘representation’ of everything in our perceived cosmic manifestation must somehow exist in reality. Ultimately, reality may even be ‘void’ in perceptual terms, but reality must exist.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

How valid is this statement "world is an illusion but our perception of the world is real"? Think about it. Let me explain. I have a perception that you have only a cursory or wrong knowledge of religions. Is my perception real or unreal? Do you deny that perception? Your assertion that reality much exist is also not true as Buddhists believe in nothingness.

[Bart Happel]

 

How valid is this statement "world is an illusion but our perception of the world is real"? Think about it. Let me explain. I have a perception that you have only a cursory or wrong knowledge of religions. Is my perception real or unreal? Do you deny that perception? Your assertion that reality much exist is also not true as Buddhists believe in nothingness.

 

I guess, ‘nothingness’ still is something, or else you should have used the term ‘nothing’. The latter, of course, would be absurd. And Buddhism simply doesn’t deny that we perceive ‘something’ with our senses. That would be equally absurd. Consequently, Buddhists accept a reality, whether they like it or not.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[ARJ]

 

I guess, ‘nothingness’ still is something, or else you should have used the term ‘nothing’. The latter, of course, would be absurd. And Buddhism simply doesn’t deny that we perceive ‘something’ with our senses. That would be equally absurd. Consequently, Buddhists accept a reality, whether they like it or not.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

Dear Buddha, we need someONE to experience this Shunyata.

[Bishadi]

perhaps nothingness represents 'no self'

 

in that nothing exists as a 'self' being isolated as all is interrelated and succumbs to change

 

cycles

 

the ideas of many faiths share to remove the self as priority

 

could sunyata be of this meaning?

 

that the experience of 'the perception' is the reality not the definitions made permanant

 

i.e... to feel existence; "i think therefore i am" is the experience perhaps affixing that experience is untrue in time; change is 'ever present'

 

just resonating the ideas

[suchandra]

 

I guess, ‘nothingness’ still is something, or else you should have used the term ‘nothing’. The latter, of course, would be absurd. And Buddhism simply doesn’t deny that we perceive ‘something’ with our senses. That would be equally absurd. Consequently, Buddhists accept a reality, whether they like it or not.

 

Kind regards, Bart

Buddhists first of all are convinced that they cannot achieve actual happiness and here they're right in that sense a conditioned soul however hard he may try cannot achieve full ananda, happiness while being under the clutches of the material energy.

Same with the longing for full knowledge and eternal life - while being stuck in the bodily concept this desire for attaining sad cid ananda, eternity, full knowledge and full bliss only ends in frustration. This frustration becomes so intense that the safety mechanism of the subtle body seeks shelter in dissolution, to become nothing, zero. Buddhism is the shelter for those who became conscious that a conditiond soul is in a hopeless position so much so that they want to annul their whole existence. At the same time they insistently reject the path of accepting God as our eternal Father and we as His eternal servants. Clear indicator, deduced from the high level of rejecting power, that they feel not treated right by God, they feel actually terribly rejected by God. In other words, Buddhists tried in past lifes to approach God but with material motivation and when those material desires where not fullfilled they went in the opposite direction to so strongly reject a personal God that they would rather dissolve their whole self into nothingness.

The whole thing is rather neophyte foolishness, feeling so much hurt that God doesn't treated them rightly when approaching Him materially motivated that they want to dissolve, become zero.

Therefore Buddhism is the path of the frustrated or melancholiac.

This process is even activated since many lifetimes, to reject a personal God and a personal self, therefore Buddhists even lost individuality in facial expression, look almost all the same.

 

 

Caitanya Mahāprabhu has described Buddha religion as atheism. “And Māyāvāda philosophy,” He has said, “dangerous atheism.” He has given little preference to Buddhism, but to Māyāvāda philosophy He has stated, “It is dangerous atheism.” His exact version is like that, bheda namiya bauddha haila nāstika. Vedāśraye nāstika-vāda bauddha ke adika. He says that “We call the Buddhists as atheists because the simple reason is that they do not accept Vedas.” Lord Buddha, he denied, that “I don’t care for the Vedas. I have got my this own proposition, that ahiṁsā. Nonviolence is the religion. That’s all.” So he did not accept Vedas. Therefore, those who are Vedantists, those who are followers of Vedas, they called Buddhist religion atheism. Atheism means anyone who does not believe in scriptures, standard scriptures. That is called atheism.So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that Buddha philosophy is atheism undoubtedly, but Śaṅkara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedānta, but he is preaching atheism. He’s accepting… Under the shelter of Vedānta, he’s preaching atheism. So therefore they are more dangerous. Just like you are fighting with your enemies, that is very clear. “The other party is my enemy.” But if somebody’s treating as your friend and within he’s trying to kill you, enemy, oh, that is very dangerous enemy. So similarly, Caitanya Mahāprabhu said that Buddhism is atheism. That’s all right. But this Śaṅkara’s philosophy is more dangerous than atheism. And actually, so-called, so many swamis and sannyāsīs, they came. They come from India. They are this same, dangerous atheists. Nobody has preached in your country this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness or… Bhagavad-gītā is widely read, but differently interpreted. So therefore they are dangerous atheists. They are… Under the garb of Bhagavad-gītā, they are preaching atheism. So they are very dangerous. But still, because he was Lord Śiva, incarnation of Lord Śiva, and he had a particular duty, therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu supports now that tāṅhāra nāhika doṣa: “He’s not faulty. He’s not faulty because the time required to propagate such philosophy, and he had done that under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He wanted.”

There is, Padma Purāṇa, there is statement. In the Padma Purāṇa there is: māyāvādam asac-chāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate. In the Padma Purāṇa it is stated that “This Māyāvāda philosophy is covered Buddhism.” Mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇa-mūrtinā. Lord Śiva says to his wife, “My dear Pārvatī, in the age of Kali, in the garb of a brāhmaṇa, I’ll have to preach this philosophy.” Brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁ nirguṇam vakṣyate mayā. Brāhmaṇaś ca aparaṁ rūpam: “Brahman, the Supreme Lord, He has got transcendental form, but I’ll have to preach that He has no form, nirguṇam.” Sarvasvaṁ jagato ’py asya mohanārthaṁ kalau yuge: “In the age of Kali, just to bewilder the persons, I’ll have to preach this philosophy.” Vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam: “And, when I shall explain Vedānta, I shall explain everything against Vedas.”

vedānte tu mahā-śāstre māyāvādam avaidikam mayaiva vakṣyate devi jagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt

“In order to kill the atheistic person, I’ll have to preach this.” This is stated in Padma Purāṇa. And similarly, in the Śiva Purāṇa also, there is another verse:

dvāparādau yuge bhūtvā kalayā mānuṣādiṣu svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ ca janān mad-vimukhān kuru

Oh, the Supreme Lord is ordering Lord Śiva that “In the age of Kali, you go and try to make them against Kṛṣṇa consciousness.”

So there are so many policies and so many programs of the supreme authorities, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that that is time service. For the time being they are necessary. Actually, such interpretation is not necessary at all. We should take direct meaning. Now He’s explaining Vedānta. The first thing He’s explaining, ‘brahma’ śabde mukhya arthe kahe—‘bhagavān’. Whenever we speak of Brahman… Because these Māyāvādī philosophers, they are very much uttering this word, “Brahman.” Ahaṁ brahmāsmi: “All Brahman.” They don’t utter “Kṛṣṇa” or “Govinda.” Oh, that is very difficult for them. They simply utter, “Brahman.” Now… Let them. Brahman is also Vedic word. So Caitanya Mahāprabhu says the direct meaning of Brahman is Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Cid-aiśvarya- paripūrṇa, anūrdhva-samāna. Now what is the grammatical meaning of Brahman? The grammatical meaning of Brahman is that “the greatest” and “expansive.” That is the grammatical meaning of Brahman. Which is unlimitedly expanded and greatest, He is called Brahman. Now, who can be unlimitedly expansive unless He’s unlimitedly powerful? Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu says that according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also, the same meaning is there. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate. So Brahman- Paramātmā ultimately means the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 7.109-114

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

San Francisco, February 20, 1967

 

 

[weallshineon]

Wow, thats got to really hurt, as george castanza would say. So you made it clear shasrically that all my buddhist friends are nothing but atheists, I suppose they better start chanting Hare Krsna

[Bishadi]

WOW.....

 

what a set of contradictions within this thread

 

 

 

Buddhism is the shelter for those who became conscious that a conditiond soul is in a hopeless position so much so that they want to annul their whole existence.

 

funny stuff..... almost like Muslim and Jewish folk shooting daggers at each other

 

As in some lines of thought the Buddha is of Godhead, an avatar (prophet) linked with Krsna and Siva in the path of times evolution

 

but then the opinion

 

 

At the same time they insistently reject the path of accepting God as our eternal Father and we as His eternal servants

 

he is mentioned like an anti-christ.......

 

how about let's see what others say about knowledge and themselves

 

 

TEXT 91

TEXT

prabhu kahe,--"ami jiva', ati tuccha-jnana!

vyasa-sutrera gambhira artha, vyasa--bhagavan

SYNONYMS

prabhu kahe--Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied; ami jiva--I am an insignificant living being; ati tuccha-jnana--My knowledge is very meager; vyasa-sutrera--of the Vedanta-sutra, written by Vyasadeva; gambhira artha--very grave meaning; vyasa--Vyasadeva; bhagavan--the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

TRANSLATION

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu replied, "I am an ordinary living being, and therefore my knowledge is very insignificant. However, the meaning of the Brahma-sutra is very grave because its author, Vyasadeva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.

 

 

 

Hmmm.

 

seems that by leveling the playing field, the good of each contribution can be found.

 

Perhaps it is 'we the people' that confuse the good? Perhaps it is why a sort of mediator will be the assistant to gather the truth into one

 

 

TEXT 54

TEXT

'vedanta'-mate,--brahma 'sakara' nirupana

'nirguna' vyatireke tinho haya ta' 'saguna'

SYNONYMS

vedanta-mate--according to Vedanta philosophy; brahma--the Absolute Truth; sa-akara nirupana--established as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a person; nirguna--without material qualifications; vyatireke--by indirect explanations; tinho--the Supreme Personality of Godhead; haya--is; ta'--indeed; sa-guna--fully qualified with spiritual attributes.

TRANSLATION

"According to Vedanta philosophy, the Absolute Truth is a person. When the word nirguna [without qualities] is used, it is to be understood that the Lord has attributes that are totally spiritual.

 

[suchandra]

 

WOW.....

 

what a set of contradictions within this thread

 

 

 

 

funny stuff..... almost like Muslim and Jewish folk shooting daggers at each other

 

As in some lines of thought the Buddha is of Godhead, an avatar (prophet) linked with Krsna and Siva in the path of times evolution

 

but then the opinion

 

 

 

he is mentioned like an anti-christ.......

 

how about let's see what others say about knowledge and themselves

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.

 

seems that by leveling the playing field, the good of each contribution can be found.

 

Perhaps it is 'we the people' that confuse the good? Perhaps it is why a sort of mediator will be the assistant to gather the truth into one

It is about negation, to turn God, your soul and God's creation into zero, nothing. Confusing the good? Let's say someone in your city is climbing up a bridge attempting to jump and commit suicide. He isn't sure to jump and stands there waiting. Gazers start to turn out. Well yes, there could be gazers saying, don't confuse the good, if he jumps it is actually better for him than to go on living like this. Others might shout, don't jump, things will settle, don't be foolish. So this is the world we live in, mixed opinions, different views. It's all about duality in this world.

 

 

If by frustration one commits suicide, oh, that is not the end of his miseries. He creates another misery by committing suicide. Just like here, in the state law, if somebody attempts suicide and takes some poison, and if by treatment of the physician he’s all right, he’s again under the law, to be punished. Perhaps you know it. After curing him from that poisonous effect, he is under criminal code of the state: “Why you have attempted suicide?” Similarly, in the laws of nature, if you commit suicide, that is another criminal act. So suicidal policy, to end this misery of life, is not all. We must have, I mean to say, greater life.

 

Bhagavad-gītā 4.13-14

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

New York, August 1, 1966

 

 

[weallshineon]

 

WOW.....

 

what a set of contradictions within this thread

 

Perhaps it is 'we the people' that confuse the good? Perhaps it is why a sort of mediator will be the assistant to gather the truth into one

 

His Divine Grace Sucandra prabhu has made this thread very very clear - if your a buddhist then your an athiest and an impersonalist

[suchandra]

 

His Divine Grace Sucandra prabhu

Please sir, this forum is not to adulate others since we don't know each other, but to fully exhaust a topic from all points of view. Always remember, Lord Paramatma is sitting in everyones heart and when reading spiritual knowledge the Supersoul cooperates and can lead to further important advancement. So many people are confused about what Buddhism really is and like in most cases one choses this path out of sentiment, "our box champion is also a Buddhist, etc."

[Bishadi]

 

It is about negation, to turn God, your soul and God's creation into zero, nothing.

 

Perhaps the variety of interpretations are the error verus the initial teachers intent.

 

For example; Jesus represented a quality set of compassionate understanding and it was them who interpretated the guiding words, that changed much of the meanings.

 

SO rather than discount the initial teaching perhaps honor the intent and seek the good.

 

 

So this is the world we live in, mixed opinions, different views. It's all about duality in this world.

duality is like the husband and wife, together with a like purpose

 

yet, for the wife to discount the husband or vise versus share little compassion for the intent of the unit

 

Peace to you

[suchandra]

 

Perhaps the variety of interpretations are the error verus the initial teachers intent.

 

For example; Jesus represented a quality set of compassionate understanding and it was them who interpretated the guiding words, that changed much of the meanings.

 

SO rather than discount the initial teaching perhaps honor the intent and seek the good.

 

duality is like the husband and wife, together with a like purpose

 

yet, for the wife to discount the husband or vise versus share little compassion for the intent of the unit

 

Peace to you

"Honor the intent", there're surely lots of people who accomplish to manoeuvre themselves into such suffering condition that self-annihilation becomes a pleasure, a relief (see quote below by A. Bierce). "Honor the intent", why someone with sanity and reason, good quality of life, good joie of vivre, groove, should honor the intent when someone commits suicide by saying, "may be he seeked for the good"?

In our country we unfortunately have a high suicide rate but so far most people comment with incomprehension reject suicidal mentality and the state law saying you're under criminal code of the state: “Why you have attempted suicide?”

 

”

NIRVANA

, n. In the Buddhist religion, a state of pleasurable annihilation awarded to the wise, particularly to those wise enough to understand it.”

 

- Ambrose Bierce (American Writer, Journalist and Editor, 1842-1914)

 

 

[Bishadi]

 

"Honor the intent", there're surely lots of people who accomplish to manoeuvre themselves into such suffering condition that self-annihilation becomes a pleasure, a relief

are we debating?

 

shall we suggest perhaps repeating a name is a form of 'pleasure, a relief'?

 

such the same with the rituals of praying.....

 

 

"Honor the intent", why someone with sanity and reason, good quality of life, good joie of vivre, groove, should honor the intent when someone commits suicide by saying, "may be he seeked for the good"?

 

such is exactly the same mindset any could have 'against' any other religion or sect.

 

Meaning if each person was focused on some of the idiocracies of the other

then what 'good' is being accomplished.

 

Perhaps try and remember, people make serious fun at the ideas of chanting.

 

Does that mean the 'intent of good' is not worth observing?

 

 

 

In our country we unfortunately have a high suicide rate

and the only way to address the confusions and dividing force that inhabit the minds of the children is to be compassionate in observing what the delusional cause may be. Much of the cause is the idea of having nothing 'good' to offer.

 

 

”

NIRVANA

, n. In the Buddhist religion, a state of pleasurable annihilation awarded to the wise, particularly to those wise enough to understand it.”

 

- Ambrose Bierce (American Writer, Journalist and Editor, 1842-1914)

 

 

 

 

debate is good, and offers ideas to share and observe but to be focused on the opinions of others over observing the data personally, shares a lust to remain compliant to a bias......

 

it would be like me suggesting, 'well if Bush thinks its OK to bark at Russia for stopping the Georgian military advance then it must be correct'

 

A. Bierce is not speaking on behalf of anyone but himself. ie.. a journalist; you debating the 'good and intent' of Buddhism based on the words from an AMERICAN journalist?

 

Opening doors is of good medicine, closing them shares much to be desired.

 

How about a Nobel Award winner as a quality quote to observe;

 

"Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar. ...

[suchandra]

 

are we debating?

 

 

No this is NOT debating. If I say, a young boy becomes a man and this man becomes an old man and this old man will finally die, is this debating? No, it is fact. If someone says, oh this is an individual's religious opinion, what is this?

Similarly everything what sastra says is not debate/opinion/sentiment but fact. When Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita, we're His eternal parts, made in His own image and meant for a lifestyle of eternal life, full of bliss and knowledge, then this is not debate but reality. If some people come up with the idea, oh it is good to dissolve my existence, I want to become nothing, zero, happily annihilated, this is an insult against our Creator. Just like a child attempting to kill itself. Will the mother be pleased? Since this is not a debate I'll give you the answer which is not an opinion but plain fact.

No, the mother will not be pleased, saying, I feel so happy now that my child found peace by killing itself!

[kaisersose]

 

Similarly everything what sastra says is not debate/opinion/sentiment but fact.

 

For this to be true,

 

1. All people on the planet should follow the same Shastra

2. All people should interpet Shanstra the exact same way.

 

Since this is not true (for from it, actually), your statement is not correct.

 

 

When Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita, we're His eternal parts, made in His own image and meant for a lifestyle of eternal life, full of bliss and knowledge, then this is not debate but reality. If some people come up with the idea, oh it is good to dissolve my existence, I want to become nothing, zero, happily annihilated, this is an insult against our Creator.

 

You mean, your creator. The Buddhist does not acknowledge the Gita as Shastra or Krishna as a God/Creator.

 

How then is his religious belief an insult to your God? If it is so, then your religious beliefs are an insult to his religion.

 

Cheers

[suchandra]

 

For this to be true,

 

1. All people on the planet should follow the same Shastra

2. All people should interpet Shanstra the exact same way.

 

Since this is not true (for from it, actually), your statement is not correct.

 

 

 

You mean, your creator. The Buddhist does not acknowledge the Gita as Shastra or Krishna as a God/Creator.

 

How then is his religious belief an insult to your God? If it is so, then your religious beliefs are an insult to his religion.

 

Cheers

So you're claiming that when I say, a young boy will become a man and then an old man this a religious belief?

Since Buddhism says our original state is zero and the cosmic creation is false what do you want to discuss with Buddhists? For them it is all an illusion. How an illusion can be an insult? It is all zero, nothing.

[Bart Happel]

I guess that seeing the essential ‘emptiness’ of material objects, may be a good ‘realization’. It may 'show' a person his own spiritual position, in relation to material nature and relative to God. However, I’m not so sure about seeing the essential emptiness of ‘the self’..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by suchandra

Similarly everything what sastra says is not debate/opinion/sentiment but fact.

 

Originally Posted by kaisersose

For this to be true,

 

1. All people on the planet should follow the same Shastra

2. All people should interpet Shanstra the exact same way.

 

Since this is not true (for from it, actually), your statement is not correct.

 

.........................................................................

Originally Posted by suchandra

When Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita, we're His eternal parts, made in His own image and meant for a lifestyle of eternal life, full of bliss and knowledge, then this is not debate but reality. If some people come up with the idea, oh it is good to dissolve my existence, I want to become nothing, zero, happily annihilated, this is an insult against our Creator.

 

Originally Posted by kaisersose

You mean, your creator. The Buddhist does not acknowledge the Gita as Shastra or Krishna as a God/Creator.

 

How then is his religious belief an insult to your God? If it is so, then your religious beliefs are an insult to his religion.

Cheers

 

....................................................................................

 

Keisersose Do you understand what Suchandra has told you about the facts of his Scriptures?

 

Do you understand?

 

We [not counting you, nor Buddhists] understand what he is saying.

 

His statement is correct. Understand that it is correct.

 

What is happening here is that you are saying he is incorrect based on what you have heard from some other third party.

 

If the US Constitution is correct --all would follow?

1. All people on the planet should follow the same US Constitution? Yes!

2. All people should interpet US Constitution the exact same way. Yes!

 

 

Since your Constitution is not correct. We ignore it and follow in the footsteps of great men since time immemorial.

 

There is no debate here!

 

Of all the postings under this Thread --where are the COURSE TOPICS that would constitute an Education?

 

List the topics that a buddhist would learn!

Where's the metaphysics?

 

These discussions are composed of 'My professor wears a red Bow-tie and here's why ....'

 

'No, my professor wears a Green Bow-tie because ..."

 

WHAT THE HELL IS THE EDUCATIONAL SUBJECT MATTER?

 

Do you know anything about Buddhist doctrine other then every possible periphiral tangent except what actually comprises the Core Curricullum of Class Topics?

 

 

 

[suchandra]

 

Originally Posted by suchandra

Similarly everything what sastra says is not debate/opinion/sentiment but fact.

 

Originally Posted by kaisersose

For this to be true,

 

1. All people on the planet should follow the same Shastra

2. All people should interpet Shanstra the exact same way.

 

Since this is not true (for from it, actually), your statement is not correct.

 

.........................................................................

Originally Posted by suchandra

When Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita, we're His eternal parts, made in His own image and meant for a lifestyle of eternal life, full of bliss and knowledge, then this is not debate but reality. If some people come up with the idea, oh it is good to dissolve my existence, I want to become nothing, zero, happily annihilated, this is an insult against our Creator.

 

Originally Posted by kaisersose

You mean, your creator. The Buddhist does not acknowledge the Gita as Shastra or Krishna as a God/Creator.

 

How then is his religious belief an insult to your God? If it is so, then your religious beliefs are an insult to his religion.

Cheers

 

....................................................................................

 

Keisersose Do you understand what Suchandra has told you about the facts of his Scriptures?

 

Do you understand?

 

We [not counting you, nor Buddhists] understand what he is saying.

 

His statement is correct. Understand that it is correct.

 

What is happening here is that you are saying he is incorrect based on what you have heard from some other third party.

 

If the US Constitution is correct --all would follow?

1. All people on the planet should follow the same US Constitution? Yes!

2. All people should interpet US Constitution the exact same way. Yes!

 

 

Since your Constitution is not correct. We ignore it and follow in the footsteps of great men since time immemorial.

 

There is no debate here!

 

Of all the postings under this Thread --where are the COURSE TOPICS that would constitute an Education?

 

List the topics that a buddhist would learn!

Where's the metaphysics?

 

These discussions are composed of 'My professor wears a red Bow-tie and here's why ....'

 

'No, my professor wears a Green Bow-tie because ..."

 

WHAT THE HELL IS THE EDUCATIONAL SUBJECT MATTER?

 

Do you know anything about Buddhist doctrine other then every possible periphiral tangent except what actually comprises the Core Curricullum of Class Topics?

 

 

 

 

Thanks Bhaktajan, "no debate here", might sound like a dogma, but vedic knowledge is scientific in that sense that material logic also cannot refute it. For example people still argue about, also known as ahimsa principle in Buddhism, thou shall not kill (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), it is not clear enough. A religious minority group even stating, the Old Testament says, we should only eat cloven hoofed ruminants, in other words, the Old Testament instructing they should eat cows. However, when we see how much cows defend themselves and struggle not to be killed and how there's a real death struggle, is this not proof enough? What more proof people need to understand that animals don't want to be killed? God gave them two eyes to see.

But people cannot see this, are blind and instead fight with their own brains and not with the topic.

[Bishadi]

 

No this is NOT debating. If I say, a young boy becomes a man and this man becomes an old man and this old man will finally die, is this debating? No, it is fact. If someone says, oh this is an individual's religious opinion, what is this?

still an opinion.

 

debating opinions is normal; debating fact is ........ wierd, in my opinion

 

 

Similarly everything what sastra says is not debate/opinion/sentiment but fact.

that the words come from that opinion, you bet.....

 

 

When Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita, we're His eternal parts, made in His own image and meant for a lifestyle of eternal life, full of bliss and knowledge, then this is not debate but reality.

That is what all faiths have as their coming promise; that's pretty universal.

 

 

If some people come up with the idea, oh it is good to dissolve my existence, I want to become nothing, zero, happily annihilated, this is an insult against our Creator.

Now we are back to an opinion. That is the opinion of what one suggests another meant.

 

 

Just like a child attempting to kill itself. Will the mother be pleased?

Is the Mother, Rosanne?

 

 

Since this is not a debate I'll give you the answer which is not an opinion but plain fact.

Are you God? Otherwise you keep coming back to facts based on opinions and it is so confusing.

 

 

No, the mother will not be pleased, saying, I feel so happy now that my child found peace by killing itself!

a martyr?

 

i thought we were talking about... Buddhism is an Education- Not a Religion!

 

the only way to stop suicides is to give our children the truth once and for all.

[bhaktajan]

Facts based on wise old men --[btw they're long gone now]:

No debate required to see that the human form is preferable to the void or any other vessal of the souls' deportment faculties.

Some do have notions of other preferences--"not that there's anything wrong with that"--it's called free will.

.......................................................................................................................

It is written in the Isopanisad mantra #3:

 

 

 

asuryä näma te lokä andhena tamasävåtäù

 

 

 

täàs te pretyäbhigacchanti ye ke cätma-hano janäù

 

"The killer of the soul, whoever he may be, must enter into the planets known as the worlds of the faithless, full of darkness and ignorance."

Human life is distinguished from animal life due to its heavy responsibilities. Those who are cognizant of these responsibilities and who work in that spirit are called suras (godly persons), and those who are neglectful of these responsibilities or who have no information of them are called asuras (demoniac).

Throughout the universe there are only these two types of human being. In the Åg Veda it is stated that the suras always aim at the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord Viñëu and act accordingly. Their ways are as illuminated as the path of the sun.

Intelligent human beings must always remember that the soul obtains a human form after an evolution of many millions of years in the cycle of transmigration. The material world is sometimes compared to an ocean, and the human body is compared to a solid boat designed especially to cross this ocean.

The Vedic scriptures and the äcäryas, or saintly teachers, are compared to expert boatmen, and the facilities of the human body are compared to favorable breezes that help the boat ply smoothly to its desired destination.

If, with all these facilities, a human being does not fully utilize his life for self-realization, he must be considered ätma-hä, a killer of the soul. Çré Éçopaniñad warns in clear terms that the killer of the soul is destined to enter into the darkest region of ignorance to suffer perpetually.

[IamNotHeeHee]

Suchandra and Bhaktajan prabhuji's,

 

You say what is written in Vedas are facts or what is told by Srila Prabhupada are facts. How do you know? With what veracity can you say Buddhism or other philosophies are not facts? Please pardon my questions. I am quite surprised when people claim their opinions to be not faith! How do you prove the Harekrishna ideology to be a fact?

 

Thanks.

[kaisersose]

 

Thanks Bhaktajan, "no debate here", might sound like a dogma, but vedic knowledge is scientific in that sense that material logic also cannot refute it. For example people still argue about, also known as ahimsa principle in Buddhism, thou shall not kill (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), it is not clear enough. A religious minority group even stating, the Old Testament says, we should only eat cloven hoofed ruminants, in other words, the Old Testament instructing they should eat cows. However, when we see how much cows defend themselves and struggle not to be killed and how there's a real death struggle, is this not proof enough? What more proof people need to understand that animals don't want to be killed? God gave them two eyes to see.

But people cannot see this, are blind and instead fight with their own brains and not with the topic.

 

Can we extend the same logic to humans?

 

Humans have natural sexual desires. By your logic, it is blind then, to go against nature and repress oneself of sex because of a religious mandate. So this fact based approach of yours contradicts Prabhupada's concept of not having sex. Or fighting ones natural hunger during ekadasi because it is against your religious belief to eat on that day.

 

If it applies to the cow, it should apply to the human too. In fact, this argument can be extended to almost every restriction that religion places on man. Every one of them go againt man's nature in promise of some post-life grandeur (which is not a fact that can be verified).

 

Cheers