Ask A Buddhist

[Contarini]

Fascinating topic! I have to confess I haven’t read all of it, because there is so much!

I have a question, if it please the gentlemen and ladies present. I had a professor with a huge fascination in far-Eastern religions last semester ('far eastern (from our western position). He was attempting to explain the basics of a very broad and diverse group of eastern religions.

Anyways, the part that really confused me was where the self meets Nibbana (Nirvana). Atman is the self, the conscious being. Brahman is the universe, or the cosmos, or even more broadly, the ultimate reality. The confusing part is the famous phrase “atman is brahman.”

Based on our discussion and lecture in class, this is what I was able to put together:

If the self is atman, but atman is maya (illusion). Atman is not separate from brahman, and so Nibbana is not the enlightenment of the self as such, but enlightenment that atman is maya, an illusion, not distinct from brahman. So the enlightenment of Nibbana is actually not an enlightened life, but the ceasing of existence of the self. But if atman is brahman, and any distinction is only illusion, then even reincarnation itself is an illusion. There can be no reincarnation if there is no atman-self to reincarnate.

The maya (illusion) of atman is where suffering comes from, because we want to hold on to the illusion of the distinct self, and fear of the loss of self, which is illusion, causes pain and suffering in the world. “All life is suffering” the Buddha says. It is suffering, because it is maya.

I’m sure I’m missing something. Would you care to clarify for me? Maybe it’s going to take a big fat book to do so, but I’d appreciate any help.

You’re describing Hinduism, not Buddhism (and more precisely, you’re describing the best-known philosophical expression of Hinduism, “Advaita Vedanta”).

In this view, Atman is not part of Maya–Atman, as you say, is Brahman, and Brahman is what is really real, beyond Maya. However, the illusion that “Atman” (the self) is an individual, embodied existence separate from Brahman–that is Maya. When you truly understand that Atman (your true self) is Brahman, you are enlightened and reach “liberation.”

Buddhism, in contrast, teaches “anatman” or “anatta” (these terms come from two different but related ancient Indian languages, but they mean the same thing). Rather than the self being identical with eternal Reality, the self does not have permanent, independent existence at all–it’s a stream of experiences rather than a permanent thing.

However, these two views agree that our sense of having a distinct, individual, permanent self is an illusion–they just differ on what the reality is that lies behind the illusion.

To make it more complicated, Mahayana Buddhism speaks of “Buddha nature” in a way that sounds a lot like “Brahman” in Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. (In fact, the greatest Advaita Vedanta philosopher was accused by other Hindus of being a Buddhist!)

Edwin

 

[Vouthon]

To make it more complicated, Mahayana Buddhism speaks of “Buddha nature” in a way that sounds a lot like “Brahman” in Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. (In fact, the greatest Advaita Vedanta philosopher was accused by other Hindus of being a Buddhist!)

Edwin

Would that be Shankara, brother Edwin? He is the only prominent Vedanta philosopher that I can think of. If so, I never knew he was accused of being a crypto-Buddhist!

 

[aragonjohn1]

1. what do you think about Buddha’s prophesy about the coming of Jesus Christ?
2. what about abortion?
3. was there ever a physical worldwide flood?

Shalom
God bless

 

[Contarini]

1. what do you think about Buddha’s prophesy about the coming of Jesus Christ

I don’t see any evidence that there was such a prophecy. The passage cited by some Christians is one that Buddhists say refers to the future Buddha, Maitreya.

Now Christians are free to claim that the reality to which Buddha was pointing was in fact fulfilled by Jesus. But the “prophecy” in question is part of Buddhist Scripture and was written down by Buddhists with a Buddhist meaning. If you reject Buddhism, why would you accept the validity of the “prophecy” in the first place?

It’s like Muslims who find prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible while simultaneously claiming that the Bible as we have it is hopelessly corrupted; or radical scholars of the NT who construct a “historical Jesus” to suit their own theological inclinations based on a tendentious, selective reading of the evidence.

I don’t think this is a good approach, except in the very general sense that we Christians believe that everything points to Jesus. . . .

 

[notself]

1. what about abortion?

Shalom
God bless

Abortion is considered a violation of the First Precept: “I undertake to refrain from killing living creatures.”

 

[Bakmoon]

1. what do you think about Buddha’s prophesy about the coming of Jesus Christ?
2. what about abortion?
3. was there ever a physical worldwide flood?

Shalom
God bless

1. To my knowledge the Buddha never prophesied about the comming of Christ. In fact, off the top of my head I can only think of two real prophecies by the Buddha and that is the prophecy of the Metteya (which some consider to be a fabrication, but I haven’t checked the evidence on that one yet) and the prophecy that the Dhamma will eventually be forgotten.
2. As to abortion, there is no doubt that it is immoral. However, there is some speculation that very early abortions which occur prior to tissue differentiation could be morally neutral. Here is a link on the subject:
   dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahm_When_Does_Human_Life_Begin.pdf
3. I highly doubt there was a worldwide flood within the span of human existence. If there were one, it would have shown up in the geological record.

 

[AdamP88]

1. As to abortion, there is no doubt that it is immoral. However, there is some speculation that very early abortions which occur prior to tissue differentiation could be morally neutral.

I would be incredibly reluctant to follow any faith or set of beliefs that held such dubious beliefs about the right to life of the unborn.

What science is this based upon?

 

[rossum]

1. what do you think about Buddha’s prophesy about the coming of Jesus Christ?

He made no such prophecy that I am aware of. Do you have a reference? He did prophesy the future Buddha, the Maitreya.

1. what about abortion?

It is a form of injury to life and is to be avoided, except where the life of the mother is genuinely at risk.

1. was there ever a physical worldwide flood?

None is mentioned in Buddhist scriptures. For information on material things like floods, I would not look at scripture anyway. Geologists have said that the last time the world was covered in water was “Snowball Earth”, about 650 million years ago. That was ice, rather than water though.

rossum

 

[notself]

I would be incredibly reluctant to follow any faith or set of beliefs that held such dubious beliefs about the right to life of the unborn.

What science is this based upon?

The quotes in the previous posts were from a modern monk attempting to figure out a very technical matter of consciousness. It was not a quote from the Buddha.

Since there is not an “infallible Pope” in Buddhism and no dogma in the way it is understood by Catholics, speculation is not a problem. If you had followed the entire link, you would have seen that other monks disagree with Ajahn Bram in his interpretation of the arising of consciousness.

The actual teachings of the Buddha are presented in my post on the First Precept and on the Vinaya (monks rules) where any monk or nun facilitating or recommending abortion is expelled from the order.

AdamPeter, as for your reluctance to follow the teachings of the Buddha, I think you would be reluctant regardless of any stand on abortion.

 

[AndrewRaZ]

Thank you notself and Contarini for clarifying that.

What is the relationship between Hindu and Buddhism? I heard from one person that Buddhism “developed” from Hindu. Is that true?

Thanks for all your attention and answers.

 

[Bakmoon]

Thank you notself and Contarini for clarifying that.

What is the relationship between Hindu and Buddhism? I heard from one person that Buddhism “developed” from Hindu. Is that true?

Thanks for all your attention and answers.

They both come from India and they do have some ideas in common, but it is actually somewhat of a misconception that Buddhism developed out of Hinduism.

In the time of the Buddha, the religion that we would call modern Hinduism didn’t really exist yet. A more descriptive term would be to call it Vedism or Brahmanism. This system of belief was focused on the performance of various rituals and oblations as found in the Vedas, which remain the core religious texts for Hindus today, but the Hindu pantheon was a bit diferent. The main gods in the Hindu pantheon at that time was the sky god Indra and Agni, the god of the fire sacrifice.

Buddhism is not descended from this system of beliefs. It is descended from a diferent tradition in India that is sometimes refered to as the Shramanic tradition. This religious tradition stressed the importance of an ascetic lifestyle of mendicants who lived off of donations and gave up worldly attachments and practiced meditation. The Buddha adopted this type of lifestyle and Buddhism should be classified as a descendent of this ancient Shramanic tradition rather than being descended from Brahmanical Hinduism.

There are a lot of similarities between modern Hinduism and Buddhism, but a lot of this is due to the fact that the various Shramanic religions like Buddhism and Jainism had a strong influence on Hinduism, not because they came from Hinduism.

 

[Bakmoon]

I would be incredibly reluctant to follow any faith or set of beliefs that held such dubious beliefs about the right to life of the unborn.

Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t hold a position too different than this, although he came to a different conclusion. He held that aborting a fetus prior to a certain period of time was not homicide. He did believe that doing so was a mortal sin, but that it was the sin of contraception rather than the sin of homicide.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I don’t see any evidence that there was such a prophecy. The passage cited by some Christians is one that Buddhists say refers to the future Buddha, Maitreya.

Now Christians are free to claim that the reality to which Buddha was pointing was in fact fulfilled by Jesus. But the “prophecy” in question is part of Buddhist Scripture and was written down by Buddhists with a Buddhist meaning. If you reject Buddhism, why would you accept the validity of the “prophecy” in the first place?

It’s like Muslims who find prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible while simultaneously claiming that the Bible as we have it is hopelessly corrupted; or radical scholars of the NT who construct a “historical Jesus” to suit their own theological inclinations based on a tendentious, selective reading of the evidence.

I don’t think this is a good approach, except in the very general sense that we Christians believe that everything points to Jesus. . . .

i’m just sayin in the context that fulton sheen said it “Buddha even knew about Christ he on his deathbed said in about 200 years someone will come greater than i”

Shalom
God Bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

1. To my knowledge the Buddha never prophesied about the comming of Christ. In fact, off the top of my head I can only think of two real prophecies by the Buddha and that is the prophecy of the Metteya (which some consider to be a fabrication, but I haven’t checked the evidence on that one yet) and the prophecy that the Dhamma will eventually be forgotten.
2. As to abortion, there is no doubt that it is immoral. However, there is some speculation that very early abortions which occur prior to tissue differentiation could be morally neutral. Here is a link on the subject:
   dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahm_When_Does_Human_Life_Begin.pdf
3. I highly doubt there was a worldwide flood within the span of human existence. If there were one, it would have shown up in the geological record.

Thanks : )

Shalom
God Bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

He made no such prophecy that I am aware of. Do you have a reference? He did prophesy the future Buddha, the Maitreya.

It is a form of injury to life and is to be avoided, except where the life of the mother is genuinely at risk.

None is mentioned in Buddhist scriptures. For information on material things like floods, I would not look at scripture anyway. Geologists have said that the last time the world was covered in water was “Snowball Earth”, about 650 million years ago. That was ice, rather than water though.

rossum

i’m just sayin in the context that fulton sheen said it “Buddha even knew about Christ he on his deathbed said in about 200 years someone will come greater than i”

Fulton Sheen
Life is worth living second series

 

[Contarini]

Thank you notself and Contarini for clarifying that.

What is the relationship between Hindu and Buddhism? I heard from one person that Buddhism “developed” from Hindu. Is that true?

Thanks for all your attention and answers.

Sort of. It’s somewhat similar to the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Christianity arose from “Second Temple Judaism,” while the religion we now know as Judaism went through a good deal of formation after the time of Jesus (the Talmud, for instance, was written in its present form in the sixth century A.D.).

So with Hinduism and Buddhism. The religion prevalent in India in the time of Buddha (roughly 500 B.C.) is sometimes called “Brahmanism” rather than “Hinduism,” because a lot of the texts and myths and devotional practices and beliefs that we think of as Hindu hadn’t developed yet.

In other words, yes there was an early form of “Hinduism” in which Buddha was raised and many aspects of which he rejected. But Hinduism underwent a lot of changes after that time, many of them in response to Buddhism.

The Hindu philosopher I mentioned, Shankara (I neglected to mention his name but Vouthon rightly guessed it), developed ideas found in the Upanishads more than a thousand years earlier (some of the Upanishads predate Buddha, and Shankara lived around 800 A.D.), but the discussion of these ideas over the previous millennium had been shaped by Buddhism. The “Hinduism” that eventually triumphed over Buddhism in India was a Hinduism that had taken on board a lot of Buddhist insights. So it’s not as simple as Buddhism developing out of Hinduism–the two religions developed side by side for centuries.

Edwin

 

[notself]

The “Hinduism” that eventually triumphed over Buddhism in India was a Hinduism that had taken on board a lot of Buddhist insights. So it’s not as simple as Buddhism developing out of Hinduism–the two religions developed side by side for centuries.

Edwin

The persecution of Buddhists and the burning of the great library and residential university at Nalanda by the Muslim Turks in 1193 CE finished off Buddhism in India except for small areas of the south.

 

[Contarini]

The persecution of Buddhists and the burning of the great library and residential university at Nalanda by the Muslim Turks in 1193 CE finished off Buddhism in India except for small areas of the south.

I believe there’s some debate as to how much effect the Muslims had on the process of Buddhism’s disappearance from India. The atrocity you refer to (and others like it) certainly can’t have helped–but then, Muslims didn’t like Hinduism much either. So I think a bit more was going on than that.

Edwin

 

[notself]

I believe there’s some debate as to how much effect the Muslims had on the process of Buddhism’s disappearance from India. The atrocity you refer to (and others like it) certainly can’t have helped–but then, Muslims didn’t like Hinduism much either. So I think a bit more was going on than that.

Edwin

That’s why I said that the burning of the library finished off Buddhism in India. Clearly it was in decline before then.

 

[Bakmoon]

i’m just sayin in the context that fulton sheen said it “Buddha even knew about Christ he on his deathbed said in about 200 years someone will come greater than i”

Fulton Sheen
Life is worth living second series

I see. I never knew Fulton Sheen said that. I believe he was probably making some reference to the prophecy of the prophecy of the Metteya.