Brahman, Tao, Sunyata, Thales, Einstein

[Darcy88]

No, on many counts. There two general, philo-sophist positions of Atman. If you associate yoga, you have many more. It has nothing to do with the Buddha. The Buddha achieved Nirvana. Left all karma and philo-sophist position. He did not teach anymore and passed away like that. The venerable Buddhist monks are something different, but even them do no babble philo-sophically as the Atman people. There is no comparison in that regard.

Nothing to do with the Buddha." Really Cafolini? Nothing at all? The obliteration of the ego, the transcendence of sense and materialism, of the world of phenomena, the unconditioned aspect of the absolute...... nope, nothing in common at all I suppose!

You should have quoted me. Paulclem has been arguing against my position that Brahmanism and Buddhism are essentially similar.

Also, you say he "did not teach anymore." What are you talking about? He spent the last 45 years of his life travelling and teaching.

In yoga everything is united by something, in Buddhism everything is united by nothingness. That's it. The something in yoga is transcendent, unconditioned, infinite, absolute. The Buddhist conception makes more sense to me but you ought not talk down on the yogis like they are fools engaged in sophistry. They aren't. I don't consider their wisdom to be ultimate, but it is wisdom nonetheless.

[Paulclem]

Yes - the Buddha taught for 45 years. I'm not sure what Cafolini's point is about The Buddha, but I seem to remember him saying something similar previously. Perhaps he thinks the Buddhist teachings have no relation to The Historical Buddha, but it is well documented. The Buddha's words were preserved by Talking Books - Monks who memorised the teachings. They were later written down. The oral form was preserved in the repetitious formats used in the Tripitaka.

[cafolini]

Buddha taught for many years, but when he achieved Nirvana, he no longer taught anything involving karma or philo-sophy. He said people had to reincarnate to learn the necessary lessons to eventually not need any more lessons, thus achieving Nirvana, where to live or die has no value beyond that.

[Paulclem]

The title Buddha is used for someone who has achieved Enlightenment, and Nirvana is the state achieved - perfect peace, happiness, compassion etc - though it is generally regarded as indescribable. You seem to be implying that the two are different and that when he experienced Parinirvana - the death of the body of an enlightened person - that this was different from what he had been teaching. This is not so, as Parinirvana is the final death of the Enlightened being. In the 45 years of his teaching, he had expounded on Karma and the path to achieve Enlightenment already. This is ll in the texts.

I also wonder about your use of philo-sophy - are you trying to imply sophistry with this?

[cafolini]

The title Buddha is used for someone who has achieved Enlightenment, and Nirvana is the state achieved - perfect peace, happiness, compassion etc - though it is generally regarded as indescribable. You seem to be implying that the two are different and that when he experienced Parinirvana - the death of the body of an enlightened person - that this was different from what he had been teaching. This is not so, as Parinirvana is the final death of the Enlightened being. In the 45 years of his teaching, he had expounded on Karma and the path to achieve Enlightenment already. This is ll in the texts.

I also wonder about your use of philo-sophy - are you trying to imply sophistry with this?

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.
And why would you play stupid with me regarding sophistry when what I implying is absolutely obvious. Don't mess with Buddha. In Nirvana there is no Atman, nor yoga. Buddha tried all of those phjlo-sophist positions throughout his travels and while he taught. In Nirvana they are all impossible. You cannot stop the Buddha's story wherever you please to satisfy your cons.

[Paulclem]

You are entitled to your idiosyncratic view, but it doesn't accord with the teachings. The Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree before he began teaching. He achieved Nirvana then, and his teachings were a path for others to achieve this. This is the Buddha's story.

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.

It depends which tradition you refer to. The Mahayana tradition's Buddhas are full of compassion for all sentient beings, which is Amitahba's vow - To release all sentient beings from samsara. This constitutes the Bodhisattva vow.

The Therevada tradition considers the state of Nirvana to be beyond, though it is claimed that to achieve this, a being would need to realise the full extent of compassion anyway.

[cafolini]

You are entitled to your idiosyncratic view, but it doesn't accord with the teachings. The Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree before he began teaching. He achieved Nirvana then, and his teachings were a path for others to achieve this. This is the Buddha's story.

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.

It depends which tradition you refer to. The Mahayana tradition's Buddhas are full of compassion for all sentient beings, which is Amitahba's vow - To release all sentient beings from samsara. This constitutes the Bodhisattva vow.

The Therevada tradition considers the state of Nirvana to be beyond, though it is claimed that to achieve this, a being would need to realise the full extent of compassion anyway.

Even the Dalai Lama would not argue these points with me. Even the venerable monks would not argue this. The Lama is too aware of the final way of Buddha in Nirvana. He's too skillful to associate Buddha with the traditions. He knows he must preserve the possibility of other Buddha beyond any possibility of philo-sophist definition. Otherwise, Nirvana would be impossible. Case closed, until you lie enough again to merit a comment. Roflmao.

[Paulclem]

Even the Dalai Lama would not argue these points with me. Even the venerable monks would not argue this. The Lama is too aware of the final way of Buddha in Nirvana. He's too skillful to associate Buddha with the traditions. He knows he must preserve the possibility of other Buddha beyond any possibility of philo-sophist definition. Otherwise, Nirvana would be impossible. Case closed, until you lie enough again to merit a comment. Roflmao.

To reiterate:

you seem to be saying that there is a difference between the Enlightenment of The Buddha and his Parinirvana which is different and therefore - because he is now beyond - unteachable.

This is not the accepted view of The Buddha's Enlightenment by either the Therevadin or Mahayana traditions. He achieved full Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and thus earned the title of Buddha. This is a full title.

The Therevada view of his Parinirvana is that he is now beyond, but that his teachings and the path will lead others to full Enlightenment too.

The Mahayana view is that fully Enlightened Buddhas can still work for the benefit of sentient beings, and that there is a host of Buddhas who embody different qualities such as compassion.

None of this is in the slightest bit controversial.

Your stance seems to ignore the whole Mahayana tradition and rests upon the fallacious view that the Buddha did not complete the teaching which leads to an appreciation of karma, reincarnation etc.

He's too skillful to associate Buddha with the traditions

This is clearly false.

It seems as though you are using the negative definitions of Nirvana - in the sense that it is indescribable - to postulate the idea that it cannot be passed on. This is not the case, and with the Mahayana, there is a tradition of practice which relies upon different Buddhas including the Historical Buddha. This is neither esoteric nor confined to advanced practice, but is part of everyday Mahayana meditation. As I said, none of this is controversial.

[mal4mac]

Are Brahman, Tao and Sunyata (Buddhist word for emptiness) all different interpretations of what is essentially the same thing?

They are all the same thing: mechanisms for spiritualized power and domination

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/20...esh-and-blood/

[cacian]

You are entitled to your idiosyncratic view, but it doesn't accord with the teachings. The Buddha achieved Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree before he began teaching. He achieved Nirvana then, and his teachings were a path for others to achieve this. This is the Buddha's story.

There is no compassion in Nirvana. It is no longer relevant.

It depends which tradition you refer to. The Mahayana tradition's Buddhas are full of compassion for all sentient beings, which is Amitahba's vow - To release all sentient beings from samsara. This constitutes the Bodhisattva vow.

The Therevada tradition considers the state of Nirvana to be beyond, though it is claimed that to achieve this, a being would need to realise the full extent of compassion anyway.

this if you believe enlightenment is sitting under a tree to achieve it.
it seems rather far fetched that one is enlightened one the rest is not. there is a lack of logic.
if one is to be enlightened why not all ? that would save the bhudist time work and effort and gives the majority plenty to talk if they are all enlightened at the same time. how does one to chose one from the millions around? surely the task is humongous having to chose the one. and then the one has to go around teaching it all.
I cannot accept that only one is given and not all because in works term it is an easier task. equal measure to an equal pleasure surely that would make more sense.

[cacian]

Nothing to do with the Buddha." Really Cafolini? Nothing at all? The obliteration of the ego, the transcendence of sense and materialism, of the world of phenomena, the unconditioned aspect of the absolute...... nope, nothing in common at all I suppose!

You should have quoted me. Paulclem has been arguing against my position that Brahmanism and Buddhism are essentially similar.

Also, you say he "did not teach anymore." What are you talking about? He spent the last 45 years of his life travelling and teaching.

In yoga everything is united by something, in Buddhism everything is united by nothingness. That's it. The something in yoga is transcendent, unconditioned, infinite, absolute. The Buddhist conception makes more sense to me but you ought not talk down on the yogis like they are fools engaged in sophistry. They aren't. I don't consider their wisdom to be ultimate, but it is wisdom nonetheless.

how does nothingness which is a state of not being there unites anything.
nothing is empty and a human is not.

[Paulclem]

They are all the same thing: mechanisms for spiritualized power and domination

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/20...esh-and-blood/

The Perfection of Immanental Wisdom Sutra

Presumably the replacing of a deity with a doctrine. it ignores ideas like The precious human Life, and the acknowledgement of the doctrine of the need for a human body to progress.

The Irrevocable Axiom Sutra

See above

The Fear or Contempt Sutra

This again ignors the preciousness of Human Life acknowledged by the doctrine. That's why the Human realm is recognised as the most important in the Wheel of Life as it offers the best opportunity for escape. On the basis of contempt for the human body, why doesn't the doctrine advocate a formless realm or the god realm?

The Bourgeoisie Sutra

This is a western interpretation which seems to neglect how untouchables in India often have become Buddhists to escape the labelling of the caste system. Any organisation has hierarchies, but the spirit of the teaching is respect rather than a hierarchy.

The Statute of Decision Sutra

More on the hatred of the body. See point one.

The Lustful Imperium Sutra

Reject the body for the Dharma - see point one.

The Sutra of Hallucinated Destruction

Not being able to understand the implications of how an individual can improve themselves, the article criticises an assumed psychological character, whereas the aim is to improve the happiness of a person through dealing with those character traits which cause suffering.

The Identity of the Assassin Sutra

See last point.

The Suicide of X-buddhism Sutra

More about hatred of the body/ character. see above.

The Impotence Sutra

It ignores the fact that some emotions are negative and that the teaching are there to assist in reducing and removing those which cause suffering.


The Termination of the Statute Sutra

Presumably a critique of reincarnation, but the language is so obscure as to render it unintelligible beyond a vague assumption.

The Reclamation of Radical Identity Sutra

See above.

Well that was fun. I'm surprised you give this article much credence Mal, or perhaps it was a joke. Repetitive and verbose which is a feature of writing that says very little.

[Paulclem]

this if you believe enlightenment is sitting under a tree to achieve it.
it seems rather far fetched that one is enlightened one the rest is not. there is a lack of logic.
if one is to be enlightened why not all ? that would save the bhudist time work and effort and gives the majority plenty to talk if they are all enlightened at the same time. how does one to chose one from the millions around? surely the task is humongous having to chose the one. and then the one has to go around teaching it all.
I cannot accept that only one is given and not all because in works term it is an easier task. equal measure to an equal pleasure surely that would make more sense.

if you believe enlightenment is sitting under a tree to achieve it

No I don't.

it seems rather far fetched that one is enlightened one the rest is not. there is a lack of logic.

It is far fetched. if it was that easy then surely everyone would have done it.

if one is to be enlightened why not all ?

That's the aim Cacian, and why The Buddha taught the Buddhist path. In fact you've hit on the Bodhisattva Ideal which is a vow to lead all beings to Enlightenment by those who take it.

surely the task is humongous

Correct - but this was the vow taken by Buddha Amitabha. (Thre are other Buddhas including the Historical Buddha we know).

and then the one has to go around teaching it all

The Buddha taught for 45 years until his death. it is said that the other Buddhas all work to help sentient beings achieve Enlightenment, but we are unable to perceive them due to our mind's delusions.

I cannot accept that only one is given and not all

That's quite correct Cacian and is the basis of the Bodhisattva ideal I posted above. It is a difficult path to follow though and traditionally takes a number of lifetimes to complete. Considering that all sentient beings refers to all beings - insects, animals, fish etc etc on this and other worlds, then yes the task is humungous.

[Darcy88]

how does nothingness which is a state of not being there unites anything.
nothing is empty and a human is not.

It is a difficult concept I have yet to fully come to terms with. Our minds have this tendency to look at things and isolate them from the unceasing flow of cause and effect. Are you actually just your bodily form and psychical awareness or are you not just, in this present moment, one more domino in an unending forward and backward series of causes and effects? Take away dualism and all is essentially one. Nothing exists independently, in and of itself. Regard a river and realize that it is more than just that stream of water flowing past your eyes. It is as much rain and glacier, thousands of years of rain and glacier, as it is what immediately presents itself to you. Our minds see one small segment of rail-tracks and automatically bestow on them autonomous existence when in fact the tracks stretch endless distances united, one.

The nothingness of Buddhism is the assertion that no one thing exists without all things, without the whole, including ourselves. This way of looking at things increases understanding and can help eliminate ignorance. I'm sure I just did a terrible job of explaining it but, like I said, I'm still in the process of figuring it out.

[mal4mac]

I'm surprised you give this article much credence Mal, or perhaps it was a joke. Repetitive and verbose which is a feature of writing that says very little.

I take it very seriously, his blog just caused me to jack in Buddhism (again!) It uses rather more terminology from Critical Theory than I think is necessary, or to my taste, but if you read a substantial part of the site you might get some idea what he is talking about. The guy has serious credentials in Buddhist Studies, he shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Also I've just read someone complaining about his verbosity on his blog, to which he responds, he's not ducking the issue.