K
katy_kt
Guest
holy spirit? Is this the same Buddhism? Because in Buddhism, they believe that nothing is permanent and there is no concept of a god.
- Status
L
lostandconfused
Guest
You will have to refer to my original post, I never said that Siddhartha Gautama (that’s the correct spelling) was born of a virgin. It doesn’t say anywhere that he was born of a virgin actually, not to my knowledge. I did however, as you can see in the original post, say that he was born in a “mystical birth”. I was just saying they have a mystical birth in common. Yes, that’s a fact. That’s all I was saying, there seemed to be some confusion about the legend surrounding his birth (granted, the one I talked about was strictly Pali canon), so I shared my knowledge.
Are they the same and should they be regarded as the same? No no no, that’s not fair to Buddhism or Christianity.
That is great you were a moderator, thats great to see someone so well educated about Buddhism, people like you are hard to find.
S
SedesDomi
Guest
Both untrue statements.
N
notself
Guest
Thank you. I think the moderators of this site do a bang up job. They are practically invisible and protect the members from some wild stuff that is sent by “spambots”. My virtual hat is off to them.You will have to refer to my original post, I never said that Siddhartha Gautama (that’s the correct spelling) was born of a virgin. It doesn’t say anywhere that he was born of a virgin actually, not to my knowledge. I did however, as you can see in the original post, say that he was born in a “mystical birth”. I was just saying they have a mystical birth in common. Yes, that’s a fact. That’s all I was saying, there seemed to be some confusion about the legend surrounding his birth (granted, the one I talked about was strictly Pali canon), so I shared my knowledge.
Are they the same and should they be regarded as the same? No no no, that’s not fair to Buddhism or Christianity.
That is great you were a moderator, thats great to see someone so well educated about Buddhism, people like you are hard to find.
By the way, the correct spelling in Pali is Siddhattha Gotama. Pali is the language of the Theravada Suttas. Siddhartha Gautama is Sanskrit, the language of the Mahayana Sutras. The languages are close but not identical.
Dhamma (Pali)
Dharma (Sanskrit)
Kamma (Pali)
Karma (Sanskrit)
Sutta (Pali)
Sutra (Sanskrit)
N
notself
Guest
References please.Both untrue statements.
L
lostandconfused
Guest
Yeah, I agree with notself, where are you getting this from?Both untrue statements.
S
swariffin
Guest
Then you are welcome to elaborate it further, my dear brother. You can begin to name a single thing that Paul is in contradiction with Jesus.
K
katy_kt
Guest
Both untrue statements.
A course on Eastern Religions. It was taught by a person who studies Buddhism.
S
swariffin
Guest
What is the teaching of Jesus according to you Paar. Thanks to your posting of Quranic verses in other thread. That was actually the story about Jesus and Mary from Quran, not the Teaching of Jesus as recorded in Quran.
S
SedesDomi
Guest
S
swariffin
Guest
Too much “Left field” and make it “Out of bound”. Hopefully Paar could secure the first down anyway, and let the game go on.India — >:banghead: and again ----> :banghead:
Well, since I didn’t know anything about Ahmadi muslims, I did some surfing on the net and this is what I learned about what you believe/taught.
The “ahmadi” movement was created in the late 1880’s.
**Mainstream Islam believes… -read below - **
First, islam changes our Biblical facts regarding Jesus and now ahmadi movement/muslims created in 1889 change it far out somwhere in the “left field”.
The more I learn the more interesting things get for me.
Regards,
Pam
New York
S
swariffin
Guest
Are you belong to the Tzu Chi foundation, by Master Cheng Yen?
N
notself
Guest
Your teacher was most likely teaching about Hinduism and Buddhism as a unit. Hindus consider the Buddha to be the 23rd avatar of the Lord Vishnu who is (a) God.
Buddhists consider the Buddha to be a man who became enlightened. He denied being a God. Buddhism does not have a Creation story nor does it worship a Creator.
As for the statement that nothing is permanent, that is a core teaching of Buddhism. In Buddhism, all things are subject to change.
I am a Theravada Buddhist and have practiced and studied Buddhism for 7 years.
K
katy_kt
Guest
No, he was teaching only about Buddhism. I trust he knows his stuff, especially since he seemed to really like Buddhism. It was explained by someone else that Hindus consider him to be a reincarnation of some god.
Agreed, that was what I was saying. There is no concept of a ‘god’, especially one who is like western or Hindu concept. And yes, Buddha did achieve enlightenment.
Yes, that is why the concept of s god or a soul is denied. The main teaching of Buddha was that everything changes and we should be aware and accept that everything changes. Which is why people should not be attached to objects.
PS: Sorry, I after doing some re-reading I realized that you weren’t completly disagreeing with me
N
notself
Guest
Your first quote is not about impermanence. It is about Nibbana. I am not sure why you chose it.
The second quote is more on the mark regarding impermanence, although the word deva, often translated as God, does not mean God in the Christian sense of the word. Devas are very long lived but are mortal. A human who has lived a life of morality can be reborn as a deva. When devas die they wish to be reborn as human. Devas are respected as beings of great virtue, but they are not worshiped as a Christian worships God. One of the titles of the Buddha is the Teacher of gods (devas) and men.
N
notself
Guest
I was responding to SedesDomi who was responding to you. Forgive the confusion.No, he was teaching only about Buddhism. I trust he knows his stuff, especially since he seemed to really like Buddhism. It was explained by someone else that Hindus consider him to be a reincarnation of some god.
Agreed, that was what I was saying. There is no concept of a ‘god’, especially one who is like western or Hindu concept. And yes, Buddha did achieve enlightenment.
Yes, that is why the concept of s god or a soul is denied. The main teaching of Buddha was that everything changes and we should be aware and accept that everything changes. Which is why people should not be attached to objects.
PS: Sorry, I after doing some re-reading I realized that you weren’t completly disagreeing with me
N
notself
Guest
No, I support American charities. I like to be able to check out the financials of any organizations I donate to in order to be certain that the majority of my money is being spent on charitable work. This is no reflection on the Tzu Chi foundation.
S
SedesDomi
Guest
On the “nothing is permanent” theme, the quote on nibbana refers to nibbana as “unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated”, in short, nibbana as “permanent”.
One may also look at the Tilakkhana, the Three Marks of Existence:
Sabba Sankhara Anicca: All conditioned things are impermanent
Sabba Sankhara Dukkha: All conditioned things are unsatisfactory
Sabba Dhamma Anatta: All dhammas are not-self
As explained here, “conditioned things” refers to the five khandhas, or aggregates. Nibbana, being an “unconditioned”, is referred to as a “dhamma”. Notice then that Nibbana is described in the third statement (Sabba Dhamma Anatta), and not in the first statement (Sabba Sankhara Anicca). Nibbana is not-self, but Nibbana is permanent.
To wit:
So, to say that Buddhism teaches that nothing is permanent, is a statement that can be challenged.
The second statement (“there is no concept of a god” in Buddhism) is easily challenged. Now, you might say “Buddhism lacks a concept of an all-powerful entity who creates the world out of nothing”. Well, even that is not true. It’s not that Buddhism lacks such a concept. Buddhism categorically refutes such a concept, for various reasons.
In any event, the term “god” most basically refers to some sort of "super"natural entity who actually exists in a "super"natural realm. Adding additional ideas like “all-powerful” or “creator out of nothing” is interesting and perhaps conforms to Abrahamic standards, but those ideas are not essential to the “god” notion.
P
PJM
Guest
:tiphat:Very good!:clapping:
I’m old, but not quite THAT OLD, so I was not there when it happened. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it
:kissme:THANKS!
N
notself
Guest
You are correct that all conditioned things, anicca, dukkha, anatta are impermanent. This is a description in particular of the aggregates. But please tell me, what in the universe is not conditioned? What in the universe is permanent? What in the universe is not subject to change?On the “nothing is permanent” theme, the quote on nibbana refers to nibbana as “unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated”, in short, nibbana as “permanent”.
One may also look at the Tilakkhana, the Three Marks of Existence:
Sabba Sankhara Anicca: All conditioned things are impermanent
Sabba Sankhara Dukkha: All conditioned things are unsatisfactory
Sabba Dhamma Anatta: All dhammas are not-self
As explained here, “conditioned things” refers to the five khandhas, or aggregates. Nibbana, being an “unconditioned”, is referred to as a “dhamma”. Notice then that Nibbana is described in the third statement (Sabba Dhamma Anatta), and not in the first statement (Sabba Sankhara Anicca). Nibbana is not-self, but Nibbana is permanent.
To wit:
So, to say that Buddhism teaches that nothing is permanent, is a statement that can be challenged.
The second statement (“there is no concept of a god” in Buddhism) is easily challenged. Now, you might say “Buddhism lacks a concept of an all-powerful entity who creates the world out of nothing”. Well, even that is not true. It’s not that Buddhism lacks such a concept. Buddhism categorically refutes such a concept, for various reasons.
In any event, the term “god” most basically refers to some sort of "super"natural entity who actually exists in a "super"natural realm. Adding additional ideas like “all-powerful” or “creator out of nothing” is interesting and perhaps conforms to Abrahamic standards, but those ideas are not essential to the “god” notion.
Nibbana is beyond, not capable of being described but here is one attempt from the suttas. It is not described as permanent. Nibbana is neither coming nor going nor stasis.
“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.”
— Ud 8.1
As for the devas, they are subject to samsara, anicca, dukkha, anatta as any other being. There are 32 planes of existence of which two are visible to us, the human and the animal realms. These two are natural. The other planes are invisible to us but that does not make them supernatural in the Christian sense. It just makes them unseen. Although the word deva is translated as god, it actually means radiant one. According to Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Nyanatiloka:
“They [devas] are subject, however, just like all human and other beings, to ever-repeated rebirth, old age and death, and thus are not freed from the cycle of existence and from misery. Devas are not gods in any Abrahmic sense.”
All of this reminds me of Christian ministers who used to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Interesting but not enlightening.
- Status