Do you think that Buddha saw God? (if Buddha was real)

[fhansen]

Bob_Crowley:

The challenge for Christianity is to find the link which will bridge the divide. The Trappist Monk Thomas Merton had quite a long acquaintance and friendship with Buddhist spiritual figures, so what we need is another Thomas Merton (or three).

Thomas Merton was himself possibly enlightened on his final journey:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

Merton was at Polonnaruwa in Sri Lanka, looking at the carving of the Death of the Buddha. Ananda is the smaller standing figure at the left, who was the Buddha’s attendant.

Just saying, but that experience that Merton described was in no way the equivalent of “seeing” God.

 

[kill051]

I don’t know but perhaps those that had wives and families sometimes took them along with Jesus’ different visits of towns around Galilee and maybe also the final trip down to Jerusalem.

Perhaps so, but ultimately it would have been a vain endeavor, seeing as how most of the Apostles were martyred. The wives and children would have been better off had they stayed home, which I think they probably did.

 

[rossum]

Just saying, but that experience that Merton described was in no way the equivalent of “seeing” God.

No, it was (probably) far more similar to Buddhist enlightenment. An enlightened monk might be able to give you a more definite answer, or he may send you out to carry water and pound rice.

rossum

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

Just saying, but that experience that Merton described was in no way the equivalent of “seeing” God.

No, it was (probably) far more similar to Buddhist enlightenment. An enlightened monk might be able to give you a more definite answer, or he may send you out to carry water and pound rice.

rossum

Hmm, yes, the latter might give us both time to see if he could ever up with the answer. I’ve never heard the right answer yet, meaning the answer that definitively demonstrates that a Buddhist has seen God. Seems to be two different experiences altogether: seeing God vs enlightenment.

 

[AndrewAxland]

that definitively demonstrates that a Buddhist has seen God.

Jesus definitely demonstrated that in Matthew 25:31-46. Buddhists see God all the time, as do all of us.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

that definitively demonstrates that a Buddhist has seen God.

Jesus definitely demonstrated that in Matthew 25:31-46. Buddhists see God all the time, as do all of us.

Well, that’s an interesting take on it. The “seeing” of God mentioned here in this OP is what man was made for and what constitutes a much fuller communion with Him than what we ordinarily experience, which is virtually nothing compared to the insights granted to people at times. Think of the Transfiguration or Paul’s experiences for example. In this life we generally see partially, although, as said, profound “glimpses” are sometimes given, while in the next life we see fully, “face to face” as it were (1 Cor 13:12). And I don’t see where Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of anyone seeing God all the time unless you mean in other people, which is not the OP’s concern here as I’ve understood it.

 

[AndrewAxland]

If you can’t see God revealing himself to you in the little, everyday things, your wasting your time waiting for Him to reveal himself to you in a grandiose Transfiguration-like epiphany. All of creation is God revealing Himself to us. And He’s pretty darn blatant about it.

As for the Buddha, he definitely understood it. Once he was asked to give a sermon to some of his followers. He sat down on the ground, picked up a daisy from the ground around him, and held it up for all to see, without saying a word. Most of them did not get the point, except one.

 

[rossum]

Him to reveal himself to you in a grandiose Transfiguration-like epiphany.

See Bhagavad Gita chapter 11.

Once he was asked to give a sermon to some of his followers. He sat down on the ground, picked up a daisy from the ground around him, and held it up for all to see, without saying a word. Most of them did not get the point, except one.

The Flower Sutra

Toward the end of his life, the Buddha took his disciples to a quiet pond for instruction. As they had done so many times before, the Buddha’s followers sat in a small circle around him, and waited for the teaching.

But this time the Buddha had no words. He reached into the muck and pulled up a lotus flower. And he held it silently before them, its roots dripping mud and water.

The disciples were greatly confused. Buddha quietly displayed the lotus to each of them. In turn, the disciples did their best to expound upon the meaning of the flower: what it symbolised, and how it fitted into the body of Buddha’s teaching.

When at last the Buddha came to his follower Mahakasyapa, the disciple suddenly understood. He smiled and began to laugh. Buddha handed the lotus to Mahakasyapa and began to speak.

“What can be said I have said to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to Mahakasyapa.”

rossum

 

[fhansen]

If you can’t see God revealing himself to you in the little, everyday things, your wasting your time waiting for Him to reveal himself to you in a grandiose Transfiguration-like epiphany. All of creation is God revealing Himself to us. And He’s pretty darn blatant about it.

As for the Buddha, he definitely understood it. Once he was asked to give a sermon to some of his followers. He sat down on the ground, picked up a daisy from the ground around him, and held it up for all to see, without saying a word. Most of them did not get the point, except one.

I never said I was waiting for Him to reveal Himself in a grandiose way to me (He just happened to do that on His own anyway-no expectations on my part). We’re comparing apples and oranges here. We can ask the OP what he was intending, but…the everyday ways that God reveals Himself are simply not the same as the extra-ordinary ways that He can also reveal Himself. And when someone is meaning to compare these spiritual experiences between religions or whatever, they are generally thinking of the extraordinary, not commonly experienced, situations.

Again, what you described with the Buddha is not seeing God-unless to see Him in His handiwork rather than in His essence, which is strictly a gift given. I don’t know why anyone would feel the need to insist on these being the same.

 

[AndrewAxland]

I never said I was waiting for Him to reveal Himself in a grandiose way to me

It’s not what I meant to say. The “you” was generic, and not personal.

We’re comparing apples and oranges here.

Are we? You might want to give that some thought. You seem to be saying that there is a difference between “everyday” revelation, and “extra-ordinary” revelation. I think the point of both Jesus in the passage from Matthew I linked to above and Buddha in the story Rossum was kind enough to provide is that they are essentially the same. Unlike you, I don’t know why anyone would feel the need to insist that they are different. To me it sounds like they were not satisfied with all the many gifts God has given us, and continues to give us each and every moment.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

I never said I was waiting for Him to reveal Himself in a grandiose way to me

It’s not what I meant to say. The “you” was generic, and not personal.

We’re comparing apples and oranges here.

Are we? You might want to give that some thought. You seem to be saying that there is a difference between “everyday” revelation, and “extra-ordinary” revelation. I think the point of both Jesus in the passage from Matthew I linked to above and Buddha in the story Rossum was kind enough to provide is that they are essentially the same. Unlike you, I don’t know why anyone would feel the need to insist that they are different. To me it sounds like they were not satisfied with all the many gifts God has given us, and continues to give us each and every moment.

IMO we have to let God be God, and not determine how He should do things. When He’s revealed Himself in profound, extraordinary ways, as, for example, to St Teresa of Avila, this tends to produce much fruit in terms of advancing His Kingdom, the kingdom of light and love. She was strengthened to spread His message and her experiences were also recorded to edify and encourage us all. Similarly the Transfiguration apparently served God’s purposes in one way or another. In any case both, ordinary and extraordinary experiences, are perfectly fine in their respective places.

As has been said, though, different religions et al aren’t necessarily even speaking of the same thing with the term “God”. In the Christian perspective, God is a superior being, separate from ourselves while we nonetheless depend on Him for our existence. We can ignore Him, we can seek Him, we can “find” Him with His help. And He can reveal Himself or whatever He wants to reveal in completely ineffable and unpredictable ways, as one directly communicating to another.

 

[rossum]

As has been said, though, different religions et al aren’t necessarily even speaking of the same thing with the term “God”.

In Buddhist terms, the God of the Old Testament acts very unwisely and accumulates much bad karma for Himself – just count up how many people He kills. Jesus, on the other hand, is usually considered a Bodhisattva, almost at the level of a Buddha.

rossum

 

[StephenBales]

We have more evidence for the Buddha’s existence than for Jesus’ existence.

I don’t know that that’s true. For two ancient figures not majorly involved in government or conquest (yes, Buddha was at first a prince according to legend (or is that part actual history?) but left this position), we have pretty good evidence for both existing.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

As has been said, though, different religions et al aren’t necessarily even speaking of the same thing with the term “God”.

In Buddhist terms, the God of the Old Testament acts very unwisely and accumulates much bad karma for Himself – just count up how many people He kills. Jesus, on the other hand, is usually considered a Bodhisattva, almost at the level of a Buddha.

rossum

In my opinion the understanding or concept of God has progressed as humanity has potentially progressed, as we’ve experienced a life that initially rejects Him, then increasingly recognize our need for more, more than what we, ourselves, can offer apart from God. As in: when the time was ripe in human history, Christ came. And when the time is ripe in our own histories, we can better accept Him.

The bottom line has much to do with our readiness to love, love being the definition of man’s perfection if you will, a higher plane to my thinking than mere detachment. Love not only detaches us from mundane things but elevates us to a much better, loftier, and happier state. Love is the very nature of God, or a central aspect of that nature, and the “mystics” have attested to this fact, having known- or experienced-it; very difficult to explain this experience, this gift of knowledge. As St Teresa of Avila put it, “It’s love alone that gives worth to all things.” It gives meaning and value to life and all that we experience in it.

Love must be the absolute central focus of a testimony of “enlightenment”, or else I know someone has settled for something less than the real thing. And maybe Buddhists know this as well; IDK.

 

[rossum]

Love must be the absolute central focus of a testimony of “enlightenment”, or else I know someone has settled for something less than the real thing. And maybe Buddhists know this as well; IDK.

“Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.

rossum

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

Love must be the absolute central focus of a testimony of “enlightenment”, or else I know someone has settled for something less than the real thing. And maybe Buddhists know this as well; IDK.

“Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.

rossum

Yes, I’ve heard such quotes. And if that means that love, alone, is the highest good in Buddhism, the central focus, the hallmark of a perfect being, then the two belief systems are on the same page. If they have a basic understanding of the exceeding profundity of St Teresa’s simple statement, “It’s love alone that gives worth to all things”, then I’d be impressed. And I’m not saying they don’t.

I’m also not saying that all Christians necessarily understand the meaning of that statement either, where it came from, or what it would’ve taken to produce it in St Teresa. What I’m saying is that, properly understood the purpose of Christianity is to produce that love in us, a love of the highest order-and to know God is to know this love. And Jesus came to reveal that God, that very love, so that we may be drawn to and ultimately choose it over and above anything else, first and foremost. That love is the light of Christian enlightenment. It’s the primary item that’s missing in ourselves and our world.

 

[fhansen]

I think it’d be interesting to discuss detachment from worldly desires, to discuss “concupiscence” IOW, described as an inordinate attachment to the various attractions we encounter here in life. I’d suggest that these attachments are always driven either directly or indirectly by pride/ego, and that overcoming them has to do with triumphing over our egos so to speak. Not that this is a new idea. But I’m not sure where we go from there; we can easily become simply proud of our detached state I suppose. It’s interesting to me though that in Christian teaching pride opposes love directly; the two are mutually exclusive.

Love, as we’re willing and able, replaces this natural tendency towards the pride that covets, that wants to convince us that something’s missing in our deprived state, in our inferior selves. Pride actually produces inferiority and false shame by setting standards for us that we aren’t meant to meet in the first place. This is exemplified by the image of Adam & Eve experiencing shame of their nakedness after committing the first sin of pride, of placing themselves on equal footing with their Creator, the Ultimate Reality that guides and sustains all things. They were no longer comfortable with who they were.

Pride hates. Pride wants more from us than we’re made to deliver, hating anything less. Pride wants to exalt itself equal to or above God, detesting its “creaturely status” as it’s been put. Love does the opposite; it embraces the lowly, empathizes with the weak, accepts the rejected, encourages, uplifts, serves, sacrifices. By embracing or being unconcerned with its limitations, it finds itself limitless. I think it fills in the missing space that exists as we otherwise merely detach from the things that pride drives us to inordinately desire. We are made for something more, we just look for it in all the wrong places. Some random thoughts, related to the OP as I see it.