Buddhism

[Zazen]

I was wondering what the common conception of buddhism is on this forum, ive been studying buddhism for awhile and i can easily say i feel like ive only scratched the surface with a needle

in particular i mostly study Chan buddhism, its a sect of the mahayana school of buddhism, it was founded by bodhidarma in the shaolin temple through direct transmission from the buddha

umm, what the point of this whole thread is, is to maybe enlighten a few people about buddhism, some people are unaware of "what it is" EXACTLY, some feel its a philosophy others a religion others are unsure, from what ive gathered its both but then its not according to what ive studied buddhism has branched out quite extensively over its history and its also been influencial of many different religious or philosophical practices, namely Daoism, christianity, shintoism etc

umm what i mean when i say that its both a religion and a or "just" a philosophical system is that, there are so many different sects and schools of buddhism that you cannot just point a finger and say "buddhism is this" or "buddhism is that" its not easily defined because different sects may not comply to the ideas or beliefs so to speak of others, but that also doesnt mean they are conflicted amongst each other

examples of philosophical buddhism would obviously be the sutras and such, but then you have people "worshipping" dietys and such, in reality ive never really heard of buddhist worshipping dietys moreso they rely on bodhisatvas and such for guidance and wisdom, or charity etc the common misconception of buddha being a god figure is one of western influence and misunderstanding(as far as i see it) the buddha wasnt a self proclaimed messiah, he just expounded the idea of "universal truth" which really all religions/philosophys stress when you get down to it

on that, the idea of divinity which i read I Brian said Buddhism is lacking is incorrect in my humble oppinion

just because a "godhead" isnt clearly defined doesnt mean the divine presence is lacking, infact when words like "nirvana, original face, universal truth etc etc" are used they are really expounding the same truth as a christian or muslim would when they reffer to "god" or yahavea(spelling?), joshua etc etc its the same for hinduism and the vedic perception that there is one god "the supreme godhead" or krishna conciousness, just because in hinduism there are found many different manifestations of krishna(god) it doesnt negate the fact that hindus believe and strive to merge back with god, to return to gods kingdom etc etc

to me the biggest problem isnt found in these particular systems, moreso they are found in that of the practitioners lack of ability to communicate and transmit the ideas to other cultures etc

anyway, i guess ill leave it at that, i really would like to hear others ideas on the subject

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

welcome to the forum and thanks for your post.

I was wondering what the common conception of buddhism is on this forum, ive been studying buddhism for awhile and i can easily say i feel like ive only scratched the surface with a needle

in particular i mostly study Chan buddhism, its a sect of the mahayana school of buddhism, it was founded by bodhidarma in the shaolin temple through direct transmission from the buddha

i, too, enjoy Ch'an Buddhism.. though i am a Vajrayana adherent and as such, this is my understanding of Buddhism.

one of my favorite teachers is Bodhidharma.. i have a translation of Bodhidharmas' Zen by Red Pine that i enjoy quite a bit.

umm, what the point of this whole thread is, is to maybe enlighten a few people about buddhism, some people are unaware of "what it is" EXACTLY, some feel its a philosophy others a religion others are unsure, from what ive gathered its both but then its not according to what ive studied buddhism has branched out quite extensively over its history and its also been influencial of many different religious or philosophical practices, namely Daoism, christianity, shintoism etc

umm what i mean when i say that its both a religion and a or "just" a philosophical system is that, there are so many different sects and schools of buddhism that you cannot just point a finger and say "buddhism is this" or "buddhism is that" its not easily defined because different sects may not comply to the ideas or beliefs so to speak of others, but that also doesnt mean they are conflicted amongst each other

funnily enough... we are still discussing the exact definitions of a "religion"

in its most generic term... Buddhism is the term used to denote the teachings and philosophy of the historical Buddha... of course, we've no much interest in the "no real scotsman" fallacy at this point.

examples of philosophical buddhism would obviously be the sutras and such,

hmm... well.. it depends on which aspect of the Tipitaka you are referring to. some of it the philosophical teachings.. the Vinaya Pitaka is the teachings for the monastics, the rules and so forth... the Suttana Pitaka is the various teachings of the Buddha and the Abhidharma Pitaka is the Buddhist Metaphsics or Philosphical Techings.

but then you have people "worshipping" dietys and such, in reality ive never really heard of buddhist worshipping dietys

not to become too pendantic in our discussion at this point.. however, the Pure Land sect could be construed as engaging in this behavior. though, in truth, Buddhas are not the same as deities.. for some individuals, this appears not to be the case.

 

[Zazen]

Sukhavati

well, i was gonna mention pureland in that post cause i knew someone was gonna say something, but there ya go..

imho the japanese pagan influence is just that, it doesnt mean they are wrong or incorrect in their beliefs, they took the lotus sutra and expounded upon it 10000000 fold..its like insanity

irregardless though, the ideas behind pureland are not all farfetched, some are insightful imho


still debating religion..well thats a little wierd

to me religion is simply a system of dogmatic beliefs that people adhere to and apply to their everyday lives so that their will wont waver from whatever they are worshipping, it just comes down to whatever the hell your worshipping i guess

so maybe as simply as i can put it religion is a worship of a principle or idea put forth by whoever

but anyway, i dont want this thread to start goin into what religion is, it happens all the time! people get sidetracked

now though that i know you are from the school of Vajrayana it should be interesting to read your posts in the future!

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

thank you for the post.

well, i was gonna mention pureland in that post cause i knew someone was gonna say something, but there ya go..

imho the japanese pagan influence is just that, it doesnt mean they are wrong or incorrect in their beliefs, they took the lotus sutra and expounded upon it 10000000 fold..its like insanity

Pure Land isn't really a Japanese thing... it's really "tariki" or "other power" oriented. whereas the vast majority of Buddhist sects are "self power" oriented.

it is my opinon that, though there is an over-reliance upon one Sutra, the overall concept does find validity in the Sutrayana teachings.

irregardless though, the ideas behind pureland are not all farfetched, some are insightful imho

by the by... "irregardless" isn't a word i used to use it all the time, until i started to associate with some English majors... they would correct me at every turn. eh.. i still use it sometimes to irk them but i thought you should know.

still debating religion..well thats a little wierd

how come? there are many different interpetations of what "religion" is. especially given the entymology of the word.. which is near to "yoga" in origin.

to me religion is simply a system of dogmatic beliefs that people adhere to and apply to their everyday lives so that their will wont waver from whatever they are worshipping, it just comes down to whatever the hell your worshipping i guess

so maybe as simply as i can put it religion is a worship of a principle or idea put forth by whoever

but anyway, i dont want this thread to start goin into what religion is, it happens all the time! people get sidetracked

that's one definition that we can use, to be sure. though it is by no means exhaustive just ask Susma

now though that i know you are from the school of Vajrayana it should be interesting to read your posts in the future!

amitabha

indeed... i try to be very general with my responses since, by and large, the specifics get into ones tradition a bit more than overall teachings, which are shared by all three vehicles.

i've been waiting for some other Buddhists to join the forum as it is my hope to get a broad and diverse group of Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians et al, together in a place of mutal respect and understanding.

 

[Zazen]

heheh

yea i know irregardless isnt a word..its funny actually one time my sister was talking to me and she said..regardless in the sense that it sounded awkward to me and i "corrected" her, later to find out that irregardless isnt a word i felt like an ass because i had just told her she was incorrect in the way she was talking and such, but anyway, i still use the word because 1 didnt really realise i had used it, and 2 cause im stubborn and i dont really care to change the 1 minute word i have instilled in my brain....

imho theres nothing wrong with reliance upon one sutra, or 2 or 3, i see what you mean but to me if you can associate best with something that will lead you towards understanding god better then go for it, like the heart sutra with the shaolin monks

im all for bringing ideas together, in the shaolin monastery there has always been a mutual respect and sharing of ideas between the wudang taoists and the chan buddhists of shaolin, along with confucian scholars aswell

just looked back at one of my books and realised where i went wrong, ive read so much stuff about buddhism i get confused sometimes, i see now its origins, kinda interesting that im writing about this after a post i just wrote on the 5 familys of chan lineage..interesting

i obviously need to brush up on my history

ummm why do i say its wierd that what religion is, is still be discussed..well simply because it was never to confusing for me, after studying eastern philosophy and such then going back and reading western philosophy, then going back again and reading about western religion i just found it easy to draw the line between religion and plain old spiritual cultivation

alright now i been on the computer long enough, time to go

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

imho theres nothing wrong with reliance upon one sutra, or 2 or 3, i see what you mean but to me if you can associate best with something that will lead you towards understanding god better then go for it, like the heart sutra with the shaolin monks


amitabha

Namatse zazen,

thank you for the post.

i would disagree that the Heart Sutra in any way expounds a "god" notion. the Heart sutra is part of a series of sutras known as the Prajnaparamita Sutras and these sutras are exclusively focused on the exposition of emptiness as understood in the Mahayana.

i suppose that i would do for us to try to define "god" prior to saying that Buddhism, or more specificially the Heart Sutra, doesn't talk about it. overwhelmingly, when someone says the word "god" they mean "God, the Creator Deity". which, naturally, Buddhists have no part of. if god is meant to denote the class of beings called Devas, then, again naturally, Buddhists would have no problem.

 

[Zazen]

well

in buddhism ive never found they name a creator so to speak, but focus is placed purely on freeing oneself of ignorance so that they can ultimately attain enlightenement(in this life or another) and in the end enter parinirvana, or transcendental reality

now this can be taken and looked at one of two ways, 1 you can say this is a totally different goal then that of the christian and muslim tradition, or the hindu etc because a creator figure is not named, but if you look past the mere superficial differentation you can simply see that what buddhist expound as "universal truth" is the same thing as what the vedics, or christians do, only they use different vehicles and therefore they are obviously going to have different ways of explainging and expounding this truth to their disciples and laymen alike

to me just because a supreme godhead is not named makes no difference to me, buddhism suits different peoples needs whether they realise it or not they are working towards the same goal as all other serious spiritual aspirants, and regardless(hehe) of all that, its no secret buddhism teaches the philosophy of universal energy, well imho its the same philosphy as the christian idea of god is you and you are god in that god is in everything, what was it christ said when one of his disciples asked where they could find him? "split a piece of wood and youll find me, lift up a rock and ill be there" its all the same to me

like it says on the homepage- all paths lead to god

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

thank you for the post.

in buddhism ive never found they name a creator so to speak, but focus is placed purely on freeing oneself of ignorance so that they can ultimately attain enlightenement(in this life or another) and in the end enter parinirvana, or transcendental reality

in the Buddhas' day, the creator deity is named Ishvara.

now this can be taken and looked at one of two ways, 1 you can say this is a totally different goal then that of the christian and muslim tradition, or the hindu etc because a creator figure is not named, but if you look past the mere superficial differentation you can simply see that what buddhist expound as "universal truth" is the same thing as what the vedics, or christians do, only they use different vehicles and therefore they are obviously going to have different ways of explainging and expounding this truth to their disciples and laymen alike

i would disagree, especially from the Christian and Muslim aspect of your argument. Muslim and Christian theology allow no room for an Absolute Deity that is transitory, moreover, i think that Christian and Muslim theologians still have some ground to cover before i could say that thier "deity" is one and the same. Of course... this is predicated on generalized statements of doctrine and faith.. naturally, there will be sects of each tradition that will more easily be able to be reconciled with other faith traditions, to wit, Sufis and Benedictines.

to me just because a supreme godhead is not named makes no difference to me, buddhism suits different peoples needs whether they realise it or not they are working towards the same goal as all other serious spiritual aspirants, and regardless(hehe) of all that, its no secret buddhism teaches the philosophy of universal energy, well imho its the same philosphy as the christian idea of god is you and you are god in that god is in everything, what was it christ said when one of his disciples asked where they could find him? "split a piece of wood and youll find me, lift up a rock and ill be there" its all the same to me

this is not Christian Theology God is not "you" and "you" are not God in Christianity. God is seperate from people and exists outside history.. however, this would be a correct application of Hindu Theology wherein everying is Brahman. as for that saying, it's from the Gospel of Thomas, which is a heretical text, i.e. from a Christian perspective, no, Jesus didn't say that.

i'm unaware of any teachings, in Buddhism, of universal energy, though Taoism is repleat with them. cognizant as i am of the interations between Buddhism and Taoism, espeically in the form of Ch'an, i wouldn't be surprised if your sutras had some teachings on this aspect.

 

[Zazen]

well

well as for the christian/muslim godhead it was my understanding that they both worhsipped the same god, i really dont see how they could be different in that the angel gabriel is an integral part of the two

although ive never read the quran, from what ive heard they both worship 1 god and in correlation with what i know of gabriels role in the quran i really dont see how it could be misconstrued otherwise, of course there is debate amongst the two religions over silly superficial ideas and practices, really the only real problem one has with the other is the recognition of christ as the son of god, and its the same for judaism and how they percieved christ, even though they still worship 1 god, i dont believe in wasteing time meddling with the mundane aspects of god worship anyway i feel most of the religous practitioners of those religions would be better off in prayer

as for taoism and chan, they have had a great influence on each other since shaolin is the birthplace of chan(zen) many of chans philosophys and doctrines and such have been influenced and vise versa by the wudang taoist monasterys

umm what i meant below about god and you is that in the bible its made perfectly clear that god is omnipresent and omniscient, therefore it would be ridiculous to say that god isnt a part of everything which makes up our reality, also god created man in his own image which is stated in the bible..and when heaven is talked about in the bible it is made perfectly clear that when you leave this world you are making a transition from a world of dualisms to one of oness or transcendental reality where there is no differentation, for its stated that there is no hunger no desire etc etc these things cannot exist outside of transcendental reality, it is not possible

my point simply was buddhism teaches the very same thing, moving beyond the illusionary world into one of perfection

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

thank you for the post.

well as for the christian/muslim godhead it was my understanding that they both worhsipped the same god, i really dont see how they could be different in that the angel gabriel is an integral part of the two

the difference is a theological difference and one that is not readily apparant to non-adherents. the angel Gabriel is paramount in Islam though he does not hold the same role in Christianity.. however.. that is of little consequence since Gabriel is simply an angel.

although ive never read the quran, from what ive heard they both worship 1 god and in correlation with what i know of gabriels role in the quran i really dont see how it could be misconstrued otherwise, of course there is debate amongst the two religions over silly superficial ideas and practices, really the only real problem one has with the other is the recognition of christ as the son of god, and its the same for judaism and how they percieved christ, even though they still worship 1 god, i dont believe in wasteing time meddling with the mundane aspects of god worship anyway i feel most of the religous practitioners of those religions would be better off in prayer

you must admit that for those adherents, the debate is not silly in the least. it is a fundamental discussion that must happen. essentially, though God may indeed be the same, the Muslim believes that the Chrisitan and Jew has messed this up and are engaged in polytheism. Needless to say, the Christian does not believe this to be so, they believe they are monotheist. however... as this is the "eastern thought" section, we can dispense with our discussion of the Abramahaic religions at this time, though i'd be happy to continue in this vein on the Comparative or Monotheism forums.

umm what i meant below about god and you is that in the bible its made perfectly clear that god is omnipresent and omniscient, therefore it would be ridiculous to say that god isnt a part of everything which makes up our reality, also god created man in his own image which is stated in the bible..and when heaven is talked about in the bible it is made perfectly clear that when you leave this world you are making a transition from a world of dualisms to one of oness or transcendental reality where there is no differentation, for its stated that there is no hunger no desire etc etc these things cannot exist outside of transcendental reality, it is not possible

you may find this thread to be of some value or interest:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=560

my point simply was buddhism teaches the very same thing, moving beyond the illusionary world into one of perfection

hmm.. i have to disagree with this statement. there is no "one" that attains anything.. let alone perfection. moreover, perfection is a concept that cannot be applied to something that has no conceptual interpetation. i.e. Nirvana.

i'm afraid that if i continue i shall quickly become one of Susmas "elites" though i may have done that already, i have no desire to perpetuate such labels.

 

[Zazen]

words

"that is of little consequence since Gabriel is simply an angel."

i dont really see it that way but reallly i cant speak intelligently about islam since, i havent even read the quran, any of it. But Angels are messengers from GOD, so it is a little confusing to me how the same angel can manifest itself in both religions and still have little consequence as to whether or not the same GOD is being worshipped, regardless of his role

"you must admit that for those adherents, the debate is not silly in the least. it is a fundamental discussion that must happen."

I agree, for them it is neccesary, but when people start devoting the better part of their time argueing the differences between faiths, it really just seems like a waste of time and something that will in the end just lead them further away from their spiritual cultivation..

but what you said about muslims believeing christians to be engaged in polytheism makes no sense to me, ive been a christian my whole life and ive never heard anyone say that about christianity

"hmm.. i have to disagree with this statement. there is no "one" that attains anything.. let alone perfection. moreover, perfection is a concept that cannot be applied to something that has no conceptual interpetation. i.e. Nirvana"

i dont think a clear view of what nirvana is, is being presented here

imho there are 2 ways of expressing cosmic reality(nirvana) transcendental and phenomenal. transcendental cosmic reality is unconditioned and absolute. phenomenal cosmic reality is conditioned and relative.

we live in a phenomenal world, therefore we cannot be perfect, but when transcendental reality is experienced, when we have reached the ultimate, primordial truth of cosmic reality, there are no seperate objects or processes, but a universal spread of cosmic conciousness

perfection is what god is, without fault, infinite and omniscent therefore it is no wonder you have spiritual masters, all expounding the same universal truth from their direct experience of nibbana, here are a few of what im talking about:

Saint Teresa "God establishes himself in the interior of this soul in such a way that when she returns to herself, it is wholly impossible for her to doubt that she has been in God, and God in her."

Muslim master Mansur Al-hallaj "I am he whom I love and He whom I love is I"

chuang tzu "the cosmos and I live together, everything and I are one"

Bhagavad-Gita " You are the original Personality of Godhead, the oldest, the ultimate sanctuary of this manifested cosmic world. You are the knower of everything, and You are all that is knowable. You are the supreme refuge, above the material mode. O limitless form! This whole cosmic manifestation is pervaded by You!"

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

"that is of little consequence since Gabriel is simply an angel."

i dont really see it that way but reallly i cant speak intelligently about islam since, i havent even read the quran, any of it. But Angels are messengers from GOD, so it is a little confusing to me how the same angel can manifest itself in both religions and still have little consequence as to whether or not the same GOD is being worshipped, regardless of his role

Allah is not an angel that's about the best way to put it. moreover, no angel can be compared to Him in this fashion. this is also true for the Christian. the angels are, depending on ones' tradition, either equal to or subservient to humans in heaven.

but what you said about muslims believeing christians to be engaged in polytheism makes no sense to me, ive been a christian my whole life and ive never heard anyone say that about christianity

i'm not sure how many Muslims you've known that have expressed their views to you. now, in truth, there are some that do not believe this to be the case, however, there are plenty that due. so much so that this is one of thier standard apoligetics.

i dont think a clear view of what nirvana is, is being presented here

imho there are 2 ways of expressing cosmic reality(nirvana) transcendental and phenomenal. transcendental cosmic reality is unconditioned and absolute. phenomenal cosmic reality is conditioned and relative.

do you not find it at all amusing that you postulate but two modes of expression for cosmic reality? moreoever, is it not also taught in the Ch'an schools that language is rooted in the phenomenal and is therefore incapable of expressing said absolute?

the Vajrayana, in particular the Madyamika-Prasangika philosophical school, understanding of the Prajnaparamita Sutra would preclude us coming to this same understanding of the Sutra. do you mind telling which of the four philosophical schools your tradition follows?

we live in a phenomenal world, therefore we cannot be perfect, but when transcendental reality is experienced, when we have reached the ultimate, primordial truth of cosmic reality, there are no seperate objects or processes, but a universal spread of cosmic conciousness

perfection is what god is, without fault, infinite and omniscent therefore it is no wonder you have spiritual masters, all expounding the same universal truth from their direct experience of nibbana,

there is no establishment within the Buddhist cannon for a belief in a creator deity, it's simply not there. if we were to use a modern Protestant interpetation of the concept of "God"... Paul Tillich uses the term "Ground of Being", then i would see no real issue calling it the same thing.

you will find, however, that most people are not using that definition of the term "God" when they use it. they use it in the connotation of the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, the Creator of All... things of this nature. it is this very type of being that the Buddha refutes.

in any event, i'd rather not turn a thread of "buddhism" into a thread of "abramahaic theology" if you'd like, i'd be happy to continue this aspect of our discussion in the Monotheism Forum.

 

[Zazen]

creation

"Allah is not an angel that's about the best way to put it. moreover, no angel can be compared to Him in this fashion. this is also true for the Christian. the angels are, depending on ones' tradition, either equal to or subservient to humans in heaven"

never said he was, whered you pick that up?


"i'm not sure how many Muslims you've known that have expressed their views to you"

only 1, but that wasnt my point..i just cant see how anyone would believe that, i mean on what grounds?


"do you not find it at all amusing that you postulate but two modes of expression for cosmic reality? moreoever, is it not also taught in the Ch'an schools that language is rooted in the phenomenal and is therefore incapable of expressing said absolute?"

everything about cosmic reality that is needed to be said is explained in the mahaprajna-paramita

and yes, chan schools and taoists schools alike both teach the said absolute is indescribable, its why i said what i said there are 2 dimensions of explaining cosmic reality, but examples can be given


"there is no establishment within the Buddhist cannon for a belief in a creator deity, it's simply not there. if we were to use a modern Protestant interpetation of the concept of "God"... Paul Tillich uses the term "Ground of Being", then i would see no real issue calling it the same thing.

you will find, however, that most people are not using that definition of the term "God" when they use it. they use it in the connotation of the First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, the Creator of All... things of this nature. it is this very type of being that the Buddha refutes."

ask yourself this, if nirvana is void in that enlightenement does not entail going to another place, but merely a change of spiritual perspective, then there is no differentation between the knower and the known, the subject and the object, all that is left is a unified spread of cosmic energy

from that we can gather that nothing which we experience either phenomenaly or trasncendentally is part and partial of this universal truth, therefore whether named god, creator, or allah there is no desputing all things are of and the same as this

also, i can see you really wanna discuss monotheism in another thread, so create one! ill be happy to discuss the "abrahamic religions" as you call them

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

thank you for the post.

only 1, but that wasnt my point..i just cant see how anyone would believe that, i mean on what grounds?

God being three distinct things, yet also being one. they believe that the seperation of God into Father, Holy Spirit and Jesus is essentially polytheism.

everything about cosmic reality that is needed to be said is explained in the mahaprajna-paramita

and yes, chan schools and taoists schools alike both teach the said absolute is indescribable, its why i said what i said there are 2 dimensions of explaining cosmic reality, but examples can be given

however... to posit such a thing presupposes that an example would be indicative of the reality. which it is not. i would be interested in your thinking about providing examples of something beyond conception, would not one suspect that setting up similies and metaphors would obscure reality with additional conceptualizations that don't apply?

ask yourself this, if nirvana is void in that enlightenement does not entail going to another place, but merely a change of spiritual perspective, then there is no differentation between the knower and the known, the subject and the object, all that is left is a unified spread of cosmic energy

this is a distincly Yogachara view point, one which we refute. essentially, you are postulating that nirvana is something that can be known by a knower, however, this is not the case from our philosophical point of view.

moreover, we do not see it as "void". this seems to be a Chinese transliteration of the term shunyata, which would mean "emptiness" or "open-ness" depending on ones tradition.

from that we can gather that nothing which we experience either phenomenaly or trasncendentally is part and partial of this universal truth, therefore whether named god, creator, or allah there is no desputing all things are of and the same as this

again.. this is a distinctly Yogachara view point and one which we refute. as i've indicated in another thread.. i shall be posting a brief synopsis of the 4 (or 5) Buddhist philosophical schools in the next week or so. hopefully, that will be a more lucid explanation of the position that we have with regards to these things.

 

[Zazen]

Guatma

"God being three distinct things, yet also being one. they believe that the seperation of God into Father, Holy Spirit and Jesus is essentially polytheism"

thats what i thought youd say

"however... to posit such a thing presupposes that an example would be indicative of the reality. which it is not. i would be interested in your thinking about providing examples of something beyond conception, would not one suspect that setting up similies and metaphors would obscure reality with additional conceptualizations that don't apply?"

the only thing that would be beyond conception would be that direct experience and intuitive understanding are the foundation of the chan practitioner, therefore making any concepts put forth by their masters, simply another tool, like i said before, the practitioner does not think or feel they are of cosmic reality, they experience it

"this is a distincly Yogachara view point, one which we refute. essentially, you are postulating that nirvana is something that can be known by a knower, however, this is not the case from our philosophical point of view.

moreover, we do not see it as "void". this seems to be a Chinese transliteration of the term shunyata, which would mean "emptiness" or "open-ness" depending on ones tradition"

we say, emptiness is form and form is emptiness

amitabha

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zazen,

""

thats what i thought youd say

hmm... was it some sort of test then? if so, did i pass or fail?

we say, emptiness is form and form is emptiness

amitabha

hehe... you say much more than that... but then again

 

[Zazen]

oh

"hmm... was it some sort of test then? if so, did i pass or fail?"

no its nothing like that, when you said muslims claim christians are engaged in polytheism i at first thought maybe they were reffering to the holy trinity, but then i thought that was ridiculous..i guess not

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste zazen,

thank you for the post.

"hmm... was it some sort of test then? if so, did i pass or fail?"

no its nothing like that, when you said muslims claim christians are engaged in polytheism i at first thought maybe they were reffering to the holy trinity, but then i thought that was ridiculous..i guess not

ah, yes.. i see what you mean now

at first, i did not understand this concept. i understand it now, thanks to some very patient and articulate Muslims i've met at Understanding-Islam.org

this subject is, as you'd imagine, also a polemical topic for them vis a vie Christianity.