No Consciousness or Perception in Buddhist Nirvana?

[Jaberwocky]

Being a Baha’i I have an interest in the Buddha… and having read some of the posts here I thought I’d recommend a book by Paul Carus…

e-booksdirectory.com/details.php?ebook=6843

It’s been a popular book about the Buddha and His life… It’s a good general introduction.

Carus also has selected some teachings that may well resonate for Christians.

Also “The Light of Asia” by Edwin Arnold is available:

classicly.com/download-the-light-of-asia-pdf

There’s also the Legend of Saint Barlaam that runs through Christian and Islamic traditions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Barlaam

There might be some misinformation about the characters you mentioned. You can find more about it here

newadvent.org/cathen/02297a.htm

They are not Saints and neither are they venerated in the West (East I am not sure but I presume its the same).

 

[billcu1]

In Jesus’s day Sons of God were a dime a dozen. If you were a king you were a discendant of a god. What’s that mean anyway? Son of God. You have seen Jesus’s lineage from Adam to Jesus. I’ve seen it from Jesus to the Crown prince of Israel who would now be king. Is he god or a son of god because of a king’s lineage?

 

[rossum]

So can you tell us all here how you figured out that “it is something any man can achieve?”

Scripture says so. Buddhism is a universalist religion. Everyone attains nirvana eventually.

Is it not true Rossum that it is an apriori religious belief in itself to say that one can achieve a higher state of consciousness by himself?

It is a testable belief. Testable within this current life.

But this assumes that Buddha achieved something in actuality. That is the question we deal with here.

He achieved the founding of a major world religion.

“The ultimate reality is that the dots are moving.”

See my sig. The Buddhist view of ultimate reality is very different from the usual Christian view. Try reading some Nagarjuna. You might also usefully consult Einstein on how “movement” is defined.

Aah Rossum, the irony here is to see you try to teach Christianity to somehow get some leverage for Buddhism.

So, you do not have any Bible quotes for me.

Why does Buddha’s lack of killing make him a good person?

Bwahahahaha! Did you actually think about that question before you posted it? Try, “Why did Stalin’s many killings make him a bad person?”

Again FYI: God can kill everyone if he wanted to because we are his creation.

Which is one of the reasons why I don’t like Christianity: it has no universal morality, despite often claiming to. Christian morality does not apply to God, so there is no such thing as a universal morality. Why would I want to follow an amoral God?

rossum

 

[Emese]

Jaberwocky, I suggest you read the forum rules. We are not here to question the credibility of other religious leaders, nor to prove one religion’s superiority above another.

I thank Rossum for shedding light on a lot of buddhism’s key points and beliefs.
Jaberwocky, I suggest that if you are interested to learn more, you use this opportunity to respectfully ask any further questions you may have. Peace.

 

[Emese]

In Jesus’s day Sons of God were a dime a dozen. If you were a king you were a discendant of a god. What’s that mean anyway? Son of God. You have seen Jesus’s lineage from Adam to Jesus. I’ve seen it from Jesus to the Crown prince of Israel who would now be king. Is he god or a son of god because of a king’s lineage?

…and Jesus also told us that we are all sons of God and taught us to pray: “Our Father…”

 

[billcu1]

Jaberwocky, I suggest you read the forum rules. We are not here to question the credibility of other religious leaders, nor to prove one religion’s superiority above another.

I thank Rossum for shedding light on a lot of buddhism’s key points and beliefs.
Jaberwocky, I suggest that if you are interested to learn more, you use this opportunity to respectfully ask any further questions you may have. Peace.

I agree. This thread has become a “I’m right and your wrong and this is why” thread. I don’t believe Jaberwocky is interested in learning as much as “preaching” and telling others why they’re wrong. That’s not what we’re here for and it’s disrupting the thread so I’m going to back out from this atmosphere. It’s trolling in an intentional or unintentional way.

 

[Emese]

I agree. This thread has become a “I’m right and your wrong and this is why” thread. I don’t believe Jaberwocky is interested in learning as much as “preaching” and telling others why they’re wrong. That’s not what we’re here for and it’s disrupting the thread so I’m going to back out from this atmosphere. It’s trolling in an intentional or unintentional way.

I do hope you don’t leave the thread as I’ve found all your previous comments very informative and interesting. It is because of comments like yours I’m still reading this thread…

As far as “trolling” I guess I will just take the “don’t feed the troll” approach. :angel1:

 

[billcu1]

I do hope you don’t leave the thread as I’ve found all your previous comments very informative and interesting. It is because of comments like yours I’m still reading this thread…

As far as “trolling” I guess I will just take the “don’t feed the troll” approach. :angel1:

Oh I’m going to keep following but questioning other’s faith and claiming “superiority” is not what this thread is supposed to be about. If I was rossum I wouldn’t take the bait. Jaberwocky doesn’t know what buddhism teaches and doesn’t care. He just knows it’s wrong.

 

[Servant19]

Yes, I bowed out too for the same reasons

Lets hope for a more fruitful discourse

I must say, Buddhism has many merits and as rossum has pointed out, the fact that the Buddha founded a major global religion that is still thriving today, millenia later, is a testament to the Divinity of His Holiness. It is through the grace of God that such spiritual traditions exist in such large numbers.

I also greatly value “testability” of faith.
For without action, faith is dead. The spirit of faith must emanate through action.

There is considerable merit to the personal development offered by Buddhism, the ability to centre oneself, find stillness, reflection and progressive humility, amongst many other capacities. To be honest these attributes were mastered through Buddhism, and have been progressively reasserted by all the later religions. Prayer and meditation form the pillars of all religions.

I would be interested to hear from rossum, how achieving Nirvana results in any societal changes? Since man is organic with his environment and society in general, does such “personal” advancement give rise to any “societal” advancements; are there any teachings of the Buddha that reflect these sorts of things?

 

[Reuben_J]

Rossum:

The point of Buddhism is that the Buddha was a man. What he did, we can do as well. He did not have special assistance. He was not a god. He was not a mixture of man and god. He was a man who did something difficult, but something which it is within the ability of any man to achieve.

Jaberwocky:

“Extremity” is a relative term. I would consider “Buddha” abandoning his family to reach higher level of consciousness to be extreme behavior. I would also consider the entire idea of achieving higher consciousness by meditation and self reliance on man that Buddhism promotes in that regards is illogical and equally extreme.

What happens to the Buddhist who abandons his own family to achieve such things today and ends up being damned for such an evil deed (if Christianity were true and Buddhism was actually false)?

Just a question here. What is Buddhism concept on morality and responsibility, if any?

On face value, it seems irresponsible to leave one’s family (wife and child) as Buddha did, in order to pursue one’s search and satisfaction. But what is Buddhism thought on this? Does Buddha’s action, in here he left his family, as an example to be followed by Buddhists?

Rossum:

Because the Buddha was just a man, then we too have the chance to do what he did. If he had been a god/man then us ordinary men would have no chance of following his example. Because he was just a man then we can, in principle, do exactly what he did.

It is the fact that he was a man that allows us hope.

If this is Buddhist teaching, does that mean Buddhism do not believe in miracle and the supernatural to make things possible? Does Buddhism have any equivalent of ‘grace’?

 

[Jaberwocky]

In Jesus’s day Sons of God were a dime a dozen. If you were a king you were a discendant of a god. What’s that mean anyway? Son of God. You have seen Jesus’s lineage from Adam to Jesus. I’ve seen it from Jesus to the Crown prince of Israel who would now be king. Is he god or a son of god because of a king’s lineage?

I think the problem here is that you do not seem to understand what Christians actually believe and their order of belief.

Christians, like any other reasonable person, looks for a person of credibility.

So their first point of assent is to a “man” who died and rose from the dead, thus proving that he is more than just a “man”. At that point they decide to believe that person. Hence you have Christianity.

Buddhism in this sense is a direct contradiction. It requires one to assent based on the efficacy of its teaching where the subset of teachings that actually speak of spiritual matters are beyond verification (just like it is with Christianity or any other religion on this planet).

This is why religious assent for a reasonable person always relies on credibility of the person proclaiming the religion.

Buddha, since by his own admission, is completely human (this is required for his religion of “anyone can attain what I did” to make sense), cannot be trusted. Why? Because a mere man cannot, even if he were to sense the beyond, know that he has actually seen reality. Why? Because to even claim that one can sense and perceive the beyond as mere human beings is to already presuppose a religious truth regarding man’s capabilities. That presupposition itself cannot be grounded in anything hence will always be unreasonable.

Do you see what I am saying here? I am asking because there is no point going around in circles if you do not understand what I am saying and attack something else.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Scripture says so. Buddhism is a universalist religion. Everyone attains nirvana eventually.

It is a testable belief. Testable within this current life.

He achieved the founding of a major world religion.

See my sig. The Buddhist view of ultimate reality is very different from the usual Christian view. Try reading some Nagarjuna. You might also usefully consult Einstein on how “movement” is defined.

So, you do not have any Bible quotes for me.

Bwahahahaha! Did you actually think about that question before you posted it? Try, “Why did Stalin’s many killings make him a bad person?”

Which is one of the reasons why I don’t like Christianity: it has no universal morality, despite often claiming to. Christian morality does not apply to God, so there is no such thing as a universal morality. Why would I want to follow an amoral God?

rossum

I am afraid I cannot continue this discussion with you anymore Rossum because you do not seem to want to think critically of Buddhism. I understand and I completely respect your sensibilities.

IF and WHEN you feel comfortable taking a critical look at your own faith, we can talk.

Thank you for a great discussion.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Yes, I bowed out too for the same reasons

Lets hope for a more fruitful discourse

I must say, Buddhism has many merits and as rossum has pointed out, the fact that the Buddha founded a major global religion that is still thriving today, millenia later, is a testament to the Divinity of His Holiness. It is through the grace of God that such spiritual traditions exist in such large numbers.

I also greatly value “testability” of faith.
For without action, faith is dead. The spirit of faith must emanate through action.

There is considerable merit to the personal development offered by Buddhism, the ability to centre oneself, find stillness, reflection and progressive humility, amongst many other capacities. To be honest these attributes were mastered through Buddhism, and have been progressively reasserted by all the later religions. Prayer and meditation form the pillars of all religions.

I would be interested to hear from rossum, how achieving Nirvana results in any societal changes? Since man is organic with his environment and society in general, does such “personal” advancement give rise to any “societal” advancements; are there any teachings of the Buddha that reflect these sorts of things?

As I said before, the problem I find with what you write is that you already presume religious truths yourself. So far in the above post you have presumed the following

1. The thriving of a religion is an indicator that it is true → This fails to realize that if not for the forceful purging by Catholics of certain Pagan religions and heresies that were very damaging to humanity (Albigensianism for one), they would still exist.
2. You believe in a concept of “Testability” of faith when the key truths of any religion are beyond our grasp => heaven, hell, nature of God, nature of our Spirit, Spiritual growth.
3. It also seems to me like you confuse spiritual growth with your mental feelings. While you may assert now that they are the same, then you have also presupposed another religious truth.

 

[Servant19]

As I said before, the problem I find with what you write is that you already presume religious truths yourself. So far in the above post you have presumed the following

1. The thriving of a religion is an indicator that it is true → This fails to realize that if not for the forceful purging by Catholics of certain Pagan religions and heresies that were very damaging to humanity (Albigensianism for one), they would still exist.

So, which religion does still exist after 1000 years that is not divine in origin?

1. You believe in a concept of “Testability” of faith when the key truths of any religion are beyond our grasp => heaven, hell, nature of God, nature of our Spirit, Spiritual growth.

Actually, I would propose the first call of any religion is to define what spirituality means. Then, how can one become spiritual. Then, one can assess the fruits of that spirituality. “by their fruits ye shall know them…”

The fruits can be tested to see if they are goodly fruits or not. Why would you not test the fruits?

1. It also seems to me like you confuse spiritual growth with your mental feelings. While you may assert now that they are the same, then you have also presupposed another religious truth.

I never said anything about mental feelings. For me, in my faith, spiritual growth equates to how one can master the non-physical virtues of love, justice, truthfulness, reverence and prayerfullness, unity, kindness, thoughtfulness, creativity, courage, detachment from worldly desires, respect, courtesy (I could go on and on)

Here’s a website that reflects how one can “practice” spirituality, so that one’s life becomes like a prayer in action:

virtuesproject.com/

I don’t believe any of these qualities/vitues/attributes are mental feelings…they are expressions of the living Word…

 

[rossum]

On face value, it seems irresponsible to leave one’s family (wife and child) as Buddha did, in order to pursue one’s search and satisfaction. But what is Buddhism thought on this? Does Buddha’s action, in here he left his family, as an example to be followed by Buddhists?

The Buddha’s wife and child were part of his large extended family, so he knew that they would be looked after in his absence. Once he had attained his goal he returned home, and gave them instruction. His son became a monk, while his wife and stepmother became nuns. His mother had died shortly after his birth.

What of a man who makes arrangements for his family and then leaves home to make his fortune. When he has made his fortune he returns to his family with magnificent gifts? Is that man to be criticised?

If this is Buddhist teaching, does that mean Buddhism do not believe in miracle and the supernatural to make things possible?

Miracles are a distraction. Monks who have gained miraculous powers are instructed not to use them except in very restricted circumstances. They distract from the main task of enlightenment. Supernatural beings, such as gods, can only really offer help if they are themselves enlightened, or close to it. Basically, Buddhism ignores them.

Does Buddhism have any equivalent of ‘grace’?

Pure Land Buddhism, or Shin Buddhism, has a near equivalent. The merit of the Amida Buddha cannot get you to nirvana, but it can get you reborn in the Pure Land that the Amida Buddha has set up, called Sukhavati. It is much easier to get to nirvana from Sukhavati than it is to get to nirvana from Earth. D T Suzuki wrote an excellent short study on this called “Shin Buddhism”.

rossum

 

[Jaberwocky]

So, which religion does still exist after 1000 years that is not divine in origin?

Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and so forth?

Now as I am sure, your next reply will be “I disagree”, let me ask in advance. What actual reason do you have to disagree?

Actually, I would propose the first call of any religion is to define what spirituality means. Then, how can one become spiritual. Then, one can assess the fruits of that spirituality. “by their fruits ye shall know them…”

The fruits can be tested to see if they are goodly fruits or not. Why would you not test the fruits?

But that is unimportant. IF a religion is merely something that satisfies it’s own definition of spirituality, one cannot conclude if the observed phenomenon confirms that it is an actual religion.

For an example, Engineering can define it’s fruits. Now assume a field like Civil Engineering also associated/defined its own set of spiritual fruits to it. Let us say, “If one built a solid and reliable Bridge on earth, they will find good employment, be admired, find happiness and wealth, and also attain heaven”.

Now what we have here is the Civil Engineering religion. The problem here with your approach is that after “living it out”, you will see the “spiritual truths” of fame, happiness and wealth. But that in no way means that Civil Engineering is an actually valid religion or even of Divine origin.

Can this religion last? My guess is that Civil Engineering is probably the oldest type of Engineering so it certainly will (reminds me of the Free Masons).

What am I trying to communicate in all this? It is that your metrics of “judging by the fruits” or “looking at the age” of religions is an unreasonable metric.

I never said anything about mental feelings. For me, in my faith, spiritual growth equates to how one can master the non-physical virtues of love, justice, truthfulness, reverence and prayerfullness, unity, kindness, thoughtfulness, creativity, courage, detachment from worldly desires, respect, courtesy (I could go on and on)

Here’s a website that reflects how one can “practice” spirituality, so that one’s life becomes like a prayer in action:

virtuesproject.com/

I don’t **believe **any of these qualities/vitues/attributes are mental feelings…they are expressions of the living Word…

Not to turn this discussion on its head but have you actually thought whether you have any real reason to even think whatever it is that you believe (or don’t believe) is first a reasonable thing to start believing?

It seems to me like the metrics you have proposed to judging the validity of a religion so far are very poor and not very well though out. So is it not possible that you yourself are engaged in a false belief? Just saying.

 

[Servant19]

Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and so forth?

Now as I am sure, your next reply will be “I disagree”, let me ask in advance. What actual reason do you have to disagree?

But that is unimportant. IF a religion is merely something that satisfies it’s own definition of spirituality, one cannot conclude if the observed phenomenon confirms that it is an actual religion.

For an example, Engineering can define it’s fruits. Now assume a field like Civil Engineering also associated/defined its own set of spiritual fruits to it. Let us say, “If one built a solid and reliable Bridge on earth, they will find good employment, be admired, find happiness and wealth, and also attain heaven”.

Now what we have here is the Civil Engineering religion. The problem here with your approach is that after “living it out”, you will see the “spiritual truths” of fame, happiness and wealth. But that in no way means that Civil Engineering is an actually valid religion or even of Divine origin.

Can this religion last? My guess is that Civil Engineering is probably the oldest type of Engineering so it certainly will (reminds me of the Free Masons).

What am I trying to communicate in all this? It is that your metrics of “judging by the fruits” or “looking at the age” of religions is an unreasonable metric.

Not to turn this discussion on its head but have you actually thought whether you have any real reason to even think whatever it is that you believe (or don’t believe) is first a reasonable thing to start believing?

It seems to me like the metrics you have proposed to judging the validity of a religion so far are very poor and not very well though out. So is it not possible that you yourself are engaged in a false belief? Just saying.

This is all well and good my friend, so how would you know that Jesus is Divine in origin?

And what is the basis for this belief?

 

[Jaberwocky]

This is all well and good my friend, so how would you know that Jesus is Divine in origin?

And what is the basis for this belief?

That is another thread, another topic. Do you agree with the methodology proposed for testing here or no? That is the question we need to settle on.

 

[rossum]

That is another thread, another topic. Do you agree with the methodology proposed for testing here or no? That is the question we need to settle on.

That is this thread and this topic. You claim Jesus is divine, and show no evidence for it. I claim that the Buddha was human, and that requires less proof.

A human Jesus is in the same position as a human Buddha. It is up to you to show a difference if you claim there is one.

rossum

 

[Emese]

The Buddha’s wife and child were part of his large extended family, so he knew that they would be looked after in his absence. Once he had attained his goal he returned home, and gave them instruction. His son became a monk, while his wife and stepmother became nuns. His mother had died shortly after his birth.

What of a man who makes arrangements for his family and then leaves home to make his fortune. When he has made his fortune he returns to his family with magnificent gifts? Is that man to be criticised?

Miracles are a distraction. Monks who have gained miraculous powers are instructed not to use them except in very restricted circumstances. They distract from the main task of enlightenment. Supernatural beings, such as gods, can only really offer help if they are themselves enlightened, or close to it. Basically, Buddhism ignores them.

rossum

The lives of (catholic) saints are full of those who appear to be disobedient, disrespectful or uncaring towards their family e.g. St Francis of Assisi in the pursuit of their own spiritual advancement…
I agree with you on miracles as well. To me the most “convincing” evidence of a religion are also the “fruits” of it, (and testability) and not the miracles. Even Jesus said something on these lines not to be misled by miracles…