One God, Many Paths

Aupmanyav said:
Yeah, and the Suttas will then contain not just what Buddha taught, but also the beliefs of the scholars who committed them to writing.
Click to expand...
And one of the beliefs in the commentaries of Theravada Buddhism is that the Buddha spoke Pali. Originals should be in Pali?
 
Thomas said:
Thank you.


Curiously, the Western RHP asserts the same thing.


Again, it would seem both are saying much the same thing, it depends on how one understands the terms.


I would suggest a more discerning reading of the eschaton – particularly in Christian terms – as clearly the writings in the tradition speak precisely of liberation and emancipation, etc., and of the 'aion to come' described in richly cataphatic terms.

At the end of the 'aion of aions' then all enfolds into the One, and this is the final age, all will be one and there will be nothing other ... a final consummation of all essences, all natures, all beings, and all gods, of whatever path.

The Urgrund speaks of that which transcends the individual, which is itself transient and ephemeral, even if a demigod. One might say the Urgrund is beingness as such, whereas ideas of 'the self' or 'the individual' are subsequent and originate and arise from that, and comprise a construct of an 'I', a self-identification, in relation to other being.

Surely one may attain a 'godlike' status within one's own regnum imaginarium, nevertheless, one lives in and among other worlds, all of whom derive their being from the One?


To become an uncreated one surely implies shedding, or detaching from, the created?

I don't quite see how one can become 'an uncreated' because the prior condition is created ... ?

It seems to me terms such as 'deification' as used by the LHP carries a broad range of meaning, from a RHP concept of deification to simply achieving one's own inner potential. I think the term is slippery and deceptive, and I'm not sure it's useful in terms of LHP-RHP dialogue, because from a very quick survey, self-deification in the LHP is not how a RHP reader will interpret it.

I've linked to a couple of posts re the Imaginal Realm – I think here is the place where LHP-RHP dialogue is viable.


You v Meister Eckhart? I admire your chutzpah! 🤣
Click to expand...

TheLightWithin said:
Something like this is reputed to be Mormon doctrine.
Is Mormonism considered RHP or LHP or some combination?
Click to expand...
Western Left Hand Path traditions generally involve philosophies where individuals seek personal empowerment and spiritual advancement through individualistic or non-conformist means.

Mormonism is rooted in a monotheistic Christian framework with a strong emphasis on community, moral standards, and obedience to divine authority. It promotes a structured path to salvation through adherence to specific teachings and practices, which is quite different from the more individualistic and exploratory nature of Western Left Hand Path practices.


So, while Mormonism and Left Hand Path traditions both involve spiritual exploration, they diverge significantly in their philosophical and practical approaches to spirituality and personal development.
 
Thomas said:
Curiously, the Western RHP asserts the same thing.
Click to expand...
It is quite clear that this is not the same thing as what the RHP asserts.
Thomas said:
Again, it would seem both are saying much the same thing, it depends on how one understands the terms.


I would suggest a more discerning reading of the eschaton – particularly in Christian terms – as clearly the writings in the tradition speak precisely of liberation and emancipation, etc., and of the 'aion to come' described in richly cataphatic terms.

At the end of the 'aion of aions' then all enfolds into the One, and this is the final age, all will be one and there will be nothing other ... a final consummation of all essences, all natures, all beings, and all gods, of whatever path.

The Urgrund speaks of that which transcends the individual, which is itself transient and ephemeral, even if a demigod. One might say the Urgrund is beingness as such, whereas ideas of 'the self' or 'the individual' are subsequent and originate and arise from that, and comprise a construct of an 'I', a self-identification, in relation to other being.

Surely one may attain a 'godlike' status within one's own regnum imaginarium, nevertheless, one lives in and among other worlds, all of whom derive their being from the One?
Click to expand...
"All worlds derive their being from the One."
Click to expand...

From a Western LHP standpoint, this is an unacceptable metaphysical claim. Monism (the doctrine that all is One) is anathema to LHP goals. The idea that the Self is derivative of a higher, unitary principle (the Urgrund, the One, God, Brahman, etc.) directly undermines the LHP
Thomas said:
To become an uncreated one surely implies shedding, or detaching from, the created?
Click to expand...
From a Western Left Hand Path (WLHP) lens, it is not only untrue, but it's also a profound misunderstanding of what it means to become an Uncreated One.
Thomas said:
I don't quite see how one can become 'an uncreated' because the prior condition is created ... ?
Click to expand...
From within the LHP framework, it is not only possible—it is the very heart of the Work. he LHP rejects this.
You were created, yes—but you can become the one who creates the Self.
In that act, you become “as” the Uncreated: self-caused, self-authored, unbound.
This is not biological immortality. It’s not metaphysical origin.
It is existential revolt: to become your own root, your own law, your own god.
And in doing so, the past condition of "being created" becomes irrelevant—because you are no longer defined by it.
Nietzsche’s Übermensch: “The human is something to be overcome.”


If there is no God, then the idea of being created in a theological sense collapses. You're not "created" like an artwork made by a divine sculptor. Instead, you are:

  • Evolved, not crafted.
  • Generated, not authored.
  • Biologically configured, not purpose-built.


“The human is something to be overcome.”
Click to expand...
Thomas said:
It seems to me terms such as 'deification' as used by the LHP carries a broad range of meaning, from a RHP concept of deification to simply achieving one's own inner potential. I think the term is slippery and deceptive, and I'm not sure it's useful in terms of LHP-RHP dialogue, because from a very quick survey, self-deification in the LHP is not how a RHP reader will interpret it.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in RHP philosophy, I oppose it and I debate its authenticity.
 
Ahanu said:
Thanks for your opinion.

Now let's explore.

What tells you Theravada is the original Buddhism?
Click to expand...
Theravāda uses the Pāli Canon (also called the Tipiṭaka), the oldest complete collection of Buddhist scriptures. It is written in Pāli, a Middle Indo-Aryan language that the Buddha spoke. It was first committed to writing in Sri Lanka during the 1st century BCE at the Aluvihāra Monastery.
 
Alif Balaam Yashin said:
Theravāda uses the Pāli Canon (also called the Tipiṭaka), the oldest complete collection of Buddhist scriptures. It is written in Pāli, a Middle Indo-Aryan language that the Buddha spoke. It was first committed to writing in Sri Lanka during the 1st century BCE at the Aluvihāra Monastery.
Click to expand...
No one spoke Pali during the Buddha’s time. Clearly you didn’t watch the video.
 
Ahanu said:
No one spoke Pali during the Buddha’s time. Clearly you didn’t watch the video.
Click to expand...
The Buddha, historically, is believed to have spoken Magadhi, which was a dialect of ancient Indian languages spoken in the region where he lived and taught. This dialect eventually evolved into what we now know as Pali, which became the canonical language of Theravada Buddhism. It's important to note that the Buddha's teachings were passed down orally for several centuries before being written down, so the language evolved over time.

Is that all you have to debate from everything I wrote?
 
Alif Balaam Yashin said:
So, while Mormonism and Left Hand Path traditions both involve spiritual exploration, they diverge significantly in their philosophical and practical approaches to spirituality and personal development.
Click to expand...
There's a reputation that Mormons are taught they (or maybe only men?) will eventually become like gods and rule their own planets - though whether that is true doctrine or a distortion by outsiders I am not sure. Things I read are cagey about it.
 
Alif Balaam Yashin said:
The Buddha, historically, is believed to have spoken Magadhi, which was a dialect of ancient Indian languages spoken in the region where he lived and taught.
Click to expand...

Agree. Old Magadhi is in northeastern India.

Alif Balaam Yashin said:
This dialect eventually evolved into what we now know as Pali, which became the canonical language of Theravada Buddhism.
Click to expand...

Disagree. The idea Magadhi evolved into Pali is not true.

Linguists have come to the conclusion Pali exhibits a mixture of eastern and western features, but the majority align with western Prakrits. The Buddha is from Magadha, which, as mentioned above, is in the northeastern part of the Indian subcontinent. So is Pali really, really close to the language he spoke? Probably not.

Pali is an artificial language cobbled together.

Alif Balaam Yashin said:
Is that all you have to debate from everything I wrote?
Click to expand...

Right now I am concerned with the claim originals should be in Pali.
 
Ahanu said:
The Buddha is from Magadha, which, as mentioned above, is in the northeastern part of the Indian subcontinent. So is Pali really, really close to the language he spoke? Probably not.
Pali is an artificial language cobbled together.
Click to expand...
Buddha was not from Magadha. Of course, he meditated at many places and visited many places after his enlightenment. The region where he hailed from was known as Mithila. That is supposed to be the native place of the consort of Lord Rama, King of Ayodhya, Mother Sita (Janakpur in Nepal). Mithila straddles the Indian-Nepal border. Currently it is called as 'Mithilanchal'. Magadha is in south-east of Mithila. Maithili (the language) is a living recognized Indian language spoken by some 14 million people. Of course, just like Pali, modern Maithili would not have been the language spoken by Buddha. Languages can change a lot in 2,500 years.

Magadha.png
 
Aupmanyav said:
Buddha was not from Magadha. Of course, he meditated at many places and visited many places after his enlightenment. The region where he hailed from was known as Mithila. That is supposed to be the native place of the consort of Lord Rama, King of Ayodhya, Mother Sita (Janakpur in Nepal). Mithila straddles the Indian-Nepal border. Currently it is called as 'Mithilanchal'. Magadha is in south-east of Mithila. Maithili (the language) is a living recognized Indian language spoken by some 14 million people. Of course, just like Pali, modern Maithili would not have been the language spoken by Buddha. Languages can change a lot in 2,500 years.

View attachment 5209
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. The source I provided a link to says “that he spent most of his teaching career in the region known as Magadha.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top