My view on Buddha

[Loml]

It struck me that the Buddha was ultimately self-serving. He needed to reach enlightenment, and pursued it tirelessly. His entire philosophy was about bringing an end to his suffering.

Jesus was not so concerned about what he stood to gain when he performed his acts. If Jesus had thought more like the Buddha, I bet he wouldn’t have willingly gone to the cross for us.

Am I out of line in thinking this?

 

[rossum]

It struck me that the Buddha was ultimately self-serving. He needed to reach enlightenment, and pursued it tirelessly. His entire philosophy was about bringing an end to his suffering.

Jesus was not so concerned about what he stood to gain when he performed his acts. If Jesus had thought more like the Buddha, I bet he wouldn’t have willingly gone to the cross for us.

Am I out of line in thinking this?

The Buddha achieved the end of his suffering at age 35 when he became enlightened. He remained in the world teaching others until he died at the age of 80. For 45 years he compassionately taught others what he had learned for himself. He did not have to do that; he could have retired to a solitary life and refused to teach.

rossum

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The Buddha achieved the end of his suffering at age 35 when he became enlightened. He remained in the world teaching others until he died at the age of 80. For 45 years he compassionately taught others what he had learned for himself. He did not have to do that; he could have retired to a solitary life and refused to teach.

rossum

I really have no comment about the subject was just noticing the saying you have at the bottom of you post, “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” I have to ask how something can be an ultimate truth if there is no unltimate truth. And if that is the only ultimate truth then should it not more correctly be be there is but One ultimate truth which is there is but one ultimate truth.

the reason being “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” the second part of this keeps the first part from being true so that the whole thing is a lie.

 

[Sufjon]

I really have no comment about the subject was just noticing the saying you have at the bottom of you post, “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” I have to ask how something can be an ultimate truth if there is no unltimate truth. And if that is the only ultimate truth then should it not more correctly be be there is but One ultimate truth which is there is but one ultimate truth.

the reason being “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” the second part of this keeps the first part from being true so that the whole thing is a lie.

It appears to be a Kōan, but Rossum could clarify if that is correct. I just wanted to add that In this case it is also what is called a tangled hierarchy or “strange loop.”

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The Buddha achieved the end of his suffering at age 35 when he became enlightened. He remained in the world teaching others until he died at the age of 80. For 45 years he compassionately taught others what he had learned for himself. He did not have to do that; he could have retired to a solitary life and refused to teach.

rossum

But if he no longer suffered, what did it cost him to teach others?

 

[Neithan]

Jesus Christ served others in order to bring glory to God so ultimately He is also self-serving. You either serve God or yourself. Jesus is the only One Who can do both.

 

[Sufjon]

But if he no longer suffered, what did it cost him to teach others?

Dear Joe Kelly: By the time He had reached enlightenment it would follow that He would have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. A state of no want. Freedom from the bondage of attachment.Therefore it cost Him nothing. He had reached a point where He could give freely and lose nothing. From abundance, abundance comes. Take fullness from fullness and fullness remains.

There is an infinite potential for goodness in God’s creation. Because of this, the good that the Buddha did on no way diminishes the good that Jesus did, so there is no need to compare or to worry about what is greater. Again, from abundance, abundance comes.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[rossum]

I really have no comment about the subject was just noticing the saying you have at the bottom of you post, “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” I have to ask how something can be an ultimate truth if there is no unltimate truth. And if that is the only ultimate truth then should it not more correctly be be there is but One ultimate truth which is there is but one ultimate truth.

the reason being “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.” the second part of this keeps the first part from being true so that the whole thing is a lie.

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

I know were it comes from I was pointing out as I would th Mr Siderits that his paradox is a lie as the second part contridicts the first part. A correct statment would be that humanity contains not ultimate truth as the only ultimate truth is God,

 

[steveb1]

I know were it comes from I was pointing out as I would th Mr Siderits that his paradox is a lie as the second part contridicts the first part. A correct statment would be that humanity contains not ultimate truth as the only ultimate truth is God,

But what if God and Self are ultimately “One”, if Atman and Brahman are unified, if self and Tao are in union, if the individual attains Gnosis or is immersed in the Dharma? In such cases, is there not a real truth in saying that humanity does contain ultimate truth? Even if - through sin and ignorance - we may not be born into an awareness of our union with the ultimate, can we not recognize and admit that such union is the proper state of affairs, as 2 Peter says, that we are made “partakers in the divine nature”…? Must ultimate truth always be merely an added-on, sheer gift from the Divine, wherein we can only be grateful spectators and recipients - “children by adoption”? Is it not possible that our nature at some point is part of the divine nature? That when God breathed his own breath into Adam, He was imparting a bit of Himself into human nature?

 

[Sufjon]

But what if God and Self are ultimately “One”, if Atman and Brahman are unified, if self and Tao are in union, if the individual attains Gnosis or is immersed in the Dharma? In such cases, is there not a real truth in saying that humanity does contain ultimate truth? Even if - through sin and ignorance - we may not be born into an awareness of our union with the ultimate, can we not recognize and admit that such union is the proper state of affairs, as 2 Peter says, that we are made “partakers in the divine nature”…? Must ultimate truth always be merely an added-on, sheer gift from the Divine, wherein we can only be grateful spectators and recipients - “children by adoption”? Is it not possible that our nature at some point is part of the divine nature? That when God breathed his own breath into Adam, He was imparting a bit of Himself into human nature?

Very profoundly said Steveb1. Ignorance of our union with the Ultimate is the primordial sin that gives birth to all other sin. I love the way you said it.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[steveb1]

Very profoundly said Steveb1. Ignorance of our union with the Ultimate is the primordial sin that gives birth to all other sin. I love the way you said it.

Your friend
Sufjon

Thank you Sufjon, you said it better than I did, but I’m glad you enjoyed my post

Friend Steve

 

[rossum]

I know were it comes from I was pointing out as I would th Mr Siderits that his paradox is a lie as the second part contridicts the first part. A correct statment would be that humanity contains not ultimate truth as the only ultimate truth is God,

If a paradox is a lie then a parable is also a lie. This particular paradox expresses a truth about reality and language. A parable is a lie (or fiction if you will) which also expresses a truth about reality. Neither the paradox nor the parable are true in the narrow sense.

Do not mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

rossum

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If a paradox is a lie then a parable is also a lie. This particular paradox expresses a truth about reality and language. A parable is a lie (or fiction if you will) which also expresses a truth about reality. Neither the paradox nor the parable are true in the narrow sense.

Do not mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

rossum

You are comparing an apple and an orange. I also have never stated that all paradoxes would be lies, just this one.

It denies that there is a ultimate truth. (Which is God). Then it sets that denial up as a ultimate truth. It has nothing to do with reality and I really not sure about what is says about language other that it can be used to conveys half truths and confuse people.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

But what if God and Self are ultimately “One”, if Atman and Brahman are unified, if self and Tao are in union, if the individual attains Gnosis or is immersed in the Dharma? In such cases, is there not a real truth in saying that humanity does contain ultimate truth? Even if - through sin and ignorance - we may not be born into an awareness of our union with the ultimate, can we not recognize and admit that such union is the proper state of affairs, as 2 Peter says, that we are made “partakers in the divine nature”…? Must ultimate truth always be merely an added-on, sheer gift from the Divine, wherein we can only be grateful spectators and recipients - “children by adoption”? Is it not possible that our nature at some point is part of the divine nature? That when God breathed his own breath into Adam, He was imparting a bit of Himself into human nature?

AS 2 Peter says we are made to parttake in the divine. that does not make us divine.
Gods breathing life into Adam, throught which God now resides within Man, makes man no more unified with God than I being inside a building makes me part of the building or the building part of me.

 

[rossum]

It denies that there is a ultimate truth. (Which is God).

If God is unlimited then any words used to describe God limit Him. Is God omniscient? Then he can never learn anything new, something any of us can do easily. Is God omnipresent? Then He can never move, because he can never leave His starting point and He is already at His destination. Again, something we can do easily He cannot. How can we use words, which are contingent, changeable etc. to describe God?

It has nothing to do with reality and I really not sure about what is says about language other that it can be used to conveys half truths and confuse people.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
Buddhism is not Christianity. There is much similarity between the moralities of the two religions; the underlying philosophies are very different.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If God is unlimited then any words used to describe God limit Him. Is God omniscient? Then he can never learn anything new, something any of us can do easily. Is God omnipresent? Then He can never move, because he can never leave His starting point and He is already at His destination. Again, something we can do easily He cannot. How can we use words, which are contingent, changeable etc. to describe God?

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
Buddhism is not Christianity. There is much similarity between the moralities of the two religions; the underlying philosophies are very different.

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

This whole post goes to prove what I said earlier about language," I really not sure about what is says about language other that it can be used to conveys half truths and confuse people." It is nothing but double talk that neither expandes knowledge nor understanding.

 

[saybuddho]

You are comparing an apple and an orange. I also have never stated that all paradoxes would be lies, just this one.

It denies that there is a ultimate truth. (Which is God). Then it sets that denial up as a ultimate truth. It has nothing to do with reality and I really not sure about what is says about language other that it can be used to conveys half truths and confuse people.

Talking about truth is actually talking about reality because we live in the reality, not in dream, and in the reality also we prove truth.

When you show me an object known as a pencil, you would say to me: “this is a pencil”. I would tell you that “pencil” is an accepted label or concept or naming for an object consists of wood and the solid pigment core. Then wood is also a label, a naming for an object consists of complex organic chemicals called cellulose. Cellulose is a label for chemical substance consists of certain carbon-hydrogen-oxygen molecules. Carbon is a label for an atom with 6 protons. Proton is a label for subatomic particle with positive charge, and so on until the smallest particle scientists have discovered, which is called Higgs boson. Previously they discovered what is called Quark as the smallest particle. It is not impossible to find the smaller than Higgs boson in the future, and the next smallest and so on, and so on. Science and technology always evolve, there is no limit, as well as the limit a (so called) smallest particle can be divided. Depends on the limit of the perception, but in mathematics if a thing is very very so very small (zero point million zeros one, perhaps) it can be considered as zero. In reality zero is physically nothing. So, if there is nothing, how can you say there is ultimate truth.

If you say: “there is a ultimate truth which is God”, what in reality do you refer to as God the similar way I described a pencil? In reality, “God” is only exists in your mind, it is a concept in your thinking, an illusion, proposed by the religions (except Buddhism) as the solution for explaining the difficult-to-explain phenomena in life, the simple way but doubtful.

There is a good answer in Buddhism. The Buddha taught that there is a (cosmic) realm inhabited by a divine being similar to who you think as “God”. It is called Mahabrahma in the Brahma realm. It has very long live (compared to the lower level divine beings and human) that it thinks it is immortal. Because it was born there first, the first citizen, it claims itself as the creator of the others. The others, with less seniority have no choice than to obey and devoted to it. So it has other lower level divine beings as ministers, assistants, followers, slaves, etc. It seems like you and many other “God” believers probably has been the divine being there in your previous live, and somehow subtle part of the memory has been brought to this live, which causes the tendency to accept the believe in “God” the similar way. This is the most-make-sense explanation.

I just mean to share, don’t mean to be offensive. And I’m sorry for any grammatical error since English is not my first language.

Cheers,

saybuddho

 

[steveb1]

There is a good answer in Buddhism. The Buddha taught that there is a (cosmic) realm inhabited by a divine being similar to who you think as “God”. It is called Mahabrahma in the Brahma realm. It has very long live (compared to the lower level divine beings and human) that it thinks it is immortal. Because it was born there first, the first citizen, it claims itself as the creator of the others. The others, with less seniority have no choice than to obey and devoted to it. So it has other lower level divine beings as ministers, assistants, followers, slaves, etc. It seems like you and many other “God” believers probably has been the divine being there in your previous live, and somehow subtle part of the memory has been brought to this live, which causes the tendency to accept the believe in “God” the similar way. This is the most-make-sense explanation.

…
saybuddho

Nice comments, saybuddho

This “divine realm” you speak of seems - in some ways - similar to the Gnostic Christian view of the Demiurge. With no offense meant, I am just observing that these “heretical” Christians pictured the Demiurge as a great creator-god. In fact, he did create “the heavens and the earth”. But as “first citizen” of his god-realm and designer of heaven/earth, the Demiurge falsely imagined that he was not a god, but rather, the true God. Two observations from Buddhism to follow up on this:

1. Buddha is said to have told the high god Brahma that even gods - exalted and long-lived as they may be - live in an impermanent state, and will not remain gods forever. Moreover, Buddha said that the highest virtue is not godhood, but rather Buddhahood, Bodhi, or “Enlightenment”. As long as any god is centered in an egoic self, that god lacks the ego-transcendence required of the true Enlightened state.
2. Buddha said that the essential human question is not really about who or what created you, but rather how to transcend the “poisoned wound” of suffering caused by living centered in the ego - ego defined as “the anxious, grasping self”. Therefore, discovering or believing in a creator deity is not central to the Buddhist life-perspective. On the contrary, Buddha tended to dismiss such issues as “not tending to edification” - as mostly pointless distractions from the real problem of ego and ego-transcendence.

Nor is this utterly foreign to Jesus’ teaching: Jesus taught that knowledge of God is not just faith-related, but experiential. Moreover, he taught that the “Way” to God and the Kingdom is through a somewhat “buddhistic Path” of self-denial… the Way of dying to self (“Take up your cross daily, and follow me”), followed by a new life centered in Spirit. According to Jesus and Buddha, true spiritual living can only be achieved by losing our “self”. The culmination of that process is entering God/Spirit or Bodhi/Nirvana.

Therefore I venture the suggestion that, at least from one perspective, losing our self to find the divine Self, transcending ego to live in Spirit, to live as alter-Christi and as Buddhas … is a much more important spiritual issue than debating the existence or non-existence of a Creator-god. *That *God may or may not be reachable at the far end of syllogisms, but the living Spirit is available experientially-and-now, through a process of dying and rising taught by both Buddha and Jesus.

 

[agent_grey]

It all depends on whether he was looking to attain eternal life. If eternal life was his goal then yes he was entirely self serving. If he was looking to end his pain then he was a very normal human being with an intact mind.

It is the rats that seek eternal life that are devil incarnate.