Question on Old Changi Hospital
-
Yes, in other words, no 'personal God' belief.Originally posted by longchen:If God can be described, then it is not uncreated. If God can be percieved, then how can it be the One?
'God' can only be understood in non-duality, when there is no two. Even the term 'God' is the mind giving the uncreated a name.
In another word, what we call 'God' cannot be a thing or entity.
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" Albert Einstein -
First, there is only pure awareness ( Buddha nature, 'God', Tao). IT is straight-line forward focus. Straight line cannot know itself because it is moving in a straight line forward. Parallel lines cannot meet.Originally posted by longchen:If God can be described, then it is not uncreated. If God can be percieved, then how can it be the One?
'God' can only be understood in non-duality, when there is no two. Even the term 'God' is the mind giving the uncreated a name.
In another word, what we call 'God' cannot be a thing or entity.
Something occurs, pure awareness archs and sees itself in the reflection. The reflection is the sense of existence (I AM). Now, there is duality, awareness aware of awareness. This is the part that give us the sense of 'I exists'.
Next, more and more encasement wrap around creating more and more reflections. These are the minds that are related to our incarnational consciousness, such as mental thoughts, emotions, sense consciousness.
However, all along there is only pure awareness fooling itself. This foolish of itself is call Samsara. -
Well, if that is your perception, so be it. There are many ways and names to describe God. What you are saying is just another way.Originally posted by longchen:If God can be described, then it is not uncreated. If God can be percieved, then how can it be the One?
'God' can only be understood in non-duality, when there is no two. Even the term 'God' is the mind giving the uncreated a name.
In another word, what we call 'God' cannot be a thing or entity. -
I believe he meant is that God is not a personal being (a being with personality) as being depicted in many religions.Originally posted by shade343:Well, if that is your perception, so be it. There are many ways and names to describe God. What you are saying is just another way.
When a person attains realisation, everything is non-dual. No 'I', 'you', no such thing as a seperate entity called 'god' who created 'your' 'soul'. It does not make sense. Rather, 'God' is seen as the true nature of all.
A good read, Q&A with Dalai Lama:
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra. -
(continued)
Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why?
Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a magnificent result of the universe's material evolution, and yet they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such a way as to fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and consciousness. What they do know is that these conditions are very strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe in an astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this subject. Would you therefore speak to us about consciousness in its relation to matter and the universe?
A: Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.
Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for example: it does indeed have a beginning. How was it created? The outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient beings who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the intentions and motivations of those beings who have not yet taken control of their minds.
The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.
Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about. But from the moment the elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences of suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce the notion of karma -- that is, positive and negative acts committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements ends and the effect of karma -- in other words, the result of our past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might be between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws, it is time to explain what karma is.
Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of karma which is of a mental nature, a mental factor of volition or intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To understand the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and the material world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our bodies there are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the five elements which make up the substance of the external world. It is therefore in this context, I believe, that we must envision the connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the external elements.
- Q&A with the Dalai Lama -
I used to go there....& i saw the Tek Tek Hantu asking for cunninglungus & i run out of the building tumbling down...
Btw why is it that the Commandoes doing guard duty at the OCH? -
Doesnt the word primodial means "Being or happening first in sequence of time; original."
If you ask me, it is synonymous to being the creator. The first. -
Originally posted by larrenV2.003:I used to go there....& i saw the Tek Tek Hantu asking for cunninglungus & i run out of the building tumbling down...
Btw why is it that the Commandoes doing guard duty at the OCH?
Really? I shall go back there and see for myself. -
You can say so. But pls read the entire Q&A to understand what I meant. Or at least the bolded texts.Originally posted by shade343:Doesnt the word primodial means "Being or happening first in sequence of time; original."
If you ask me, it is synonymous to being the creator. The first.
Related topic: Returning to the Quintessence of Buddha -
U still laugh somemoreOriginally posted by shade343:
Really? I shall go back there and see for myself. u see her face & i guarantee that your didi will shrink within 1 nano seconds... -
It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time.
So to conclude... 'God' (i.e Buddha Nature/Tao) can only be reached once a person realises and directly perceives his True Nature. Over many many uncountable lifetimes, living in samsara, we have lost and forgotten 'God' (i.e Buddha Nature/Tao) although 'God' (Buddha Nature) has never left us. It is not an independant person, 'he' is your True Nature. -
Yah. I have read them. But it still does not change the fact that there is a supreme God. And I just realised that what you post are the views of the Dalai Lama. Who is he? He is just an ordinary human like you and me.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You can say so. But pls read the entire Q&A to understand what I meant. Or at least the bolded texts.
Related topic: Returning to the Quintessence of Buddha -
Dunno leh. Maybe I not as powerful as you.Originally posted by larrenV2.003:U still laugh somemore u see her face & i guarantee that your didi will shrink within 1 nano seconds... You can see such things but I cant. -
Okay but when u go there dun get chased out by the guards over there cuz very suay one lor.Originally posted by shade343:Dunno leh. Maybe I not as powerful as you. You can see such things but I cant. -
The guard or the dog?Originally posted by larrenV2.003:Okay but when u go there dun get chased out by the guards over there cuz very suay one lor. -
I can post from 100 Buddhist person and they still speak of the same thing. My taiwanese and local dharma teacher used to say something like this... a realised person will be able to explain dharma doubtlessly because buddha nature manifest to him directly. I dare to tell you... if you have doubts especially regarding Buddha Nature, no-self, come and ask my dharma teacher! There will be no way she will be stumpedOriginally posted by shade343:Yah. I have read them. But it still does not change the fact that there is a supreme God. And I just realised that what you post are the views of the Dalai Lama. Who is he? He is just an ordinary human like you and me.
Unless the questions you ask are irrelavent.
Same teachings. No-self, Luminosity, clear light, Buddha Nature. BTW, the second article 'quintessence of Buddha' is written by my Master, not Dalai Lama. Yet they also speak about the same thing although they do not use same terms and phrasing
Why is this so? Because they all speak from direct realisation. Similarly, Longchen has his own direct realisation. What is his depth of his understanding, I do not know. But at least he had a glimpse. There are alot of realised people out there! Nothing to show off about. Even realisation is not the end of the path - a glimpse of Buddha Nature is in fact, the very start. (of the 'path of accumulation' as a bodhisattva... eventually achieving Buddhahood, Complete Enlightenment where Buddha Nature manifests in complete clarity every moment)
'It does not change the fact' implies you are still stuck on dogma no matter what others say. Or do you mean the text itself states that there is a Supreme God? It clearly states that the notion of an independant, existing God (i.e someone living in Heaven watching over us) does not exist. Yes, there can be personal 'birth' of an enlightened person, but it does not mean Enlightened people creates us!
"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you
have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is
written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha
-------
THE MASTER Nan-in had a visitor who came to inquire about Zen. But
instead of listening, the visitor kept talking about his own
ideas.
After a while, Nan-in served tea. He poured tea into his visitor's
cup until it was full, then he kept on pouring.
Finally the visitor could not restrain himself. "Don't you see
it's full?" he said. "You can't get any more in!"
"Just so," replied Nan-in, stopping at last. "And like this cup,
you are filled with your own ideas. How can you expect me to give
you Zen unless you offer me an empty cup?" -
u went there & got nobody guarding the place fwah u damn the tio tao bio type leh...Originally posted by shade343:The guard or the dog? -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
So what if 100 people say the same things? If the 100 people are just going to be like you and me, it would mean nothing.
I can post from 100 Buddhist person and they still speak of the same thing.
Same teachings. Luminosity, clear light, Buddha Nature. BTW, the second article 'quintessence of Buddha' is written by my Master, not Dalai Lama. Yet they also speak about the same thing They all speak from direct realisation. Similarly, Longchen has his own direct realisation. There are alot of realised people out there! Nothing to show off about. Even realisation is not the end of the path - a glimpse of Buddha Nature is in fact, the very start. (of the 'path of accumulation' as a bodhisattva... eventually achieving Buddhahood, fulfillment of the realisation of Buddha Nature)
'It does not change the fact' implies you are still stuck on dogma no matter what others say. Or do you mean the text itself states that there is a Supreme God? It clearly states that the notion of an independant, existing God (i.e someone living in Heaven watching over us) does not exist. Yes, there can be personal 'birth' of an enlightened person, but it does not mean Enlightened people creates us!
-------
[/b]
I didnt read the second text. too long. Dogma? You have confused dogma with truth. I urged you not to constraint yourself to just what your master teach. To me it does not make sense that there is no Supreme God. The text itself on the primordial thingy only affirms the fact that there is a creator.
Anyway, here is a quote for you
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha -
Got dog lah. But no Guard.Originally posted by larrenV2.003:u went there & got nobody guarding the place fwah u damn the tio tao bio type leh... Then the dog come, me and my friends all zhao... -
That dog maybe is the Er lang Shen that doggie haha!Originally posted by shade343:Got dog lah. But no Guard. Then the dog come, me and my friends all zhao... -
The text outrightly rejects that there is an independant, autonomous existencial God that exist. The term 'God' used in that context merely means your Buddha Nature, basic nature. Never in anyway can the notion of a personal God, Being, be accepted.Originally posted by shade343:So what if 100 people say the same things? If the 100 people are just going to be like you and me, it would mean nothing.
I didnt read the second text. too long. Dogma? You have confused dogma with truth. I urged you not to constraint yourself to just what your master teach. To me it does not make sense that there is no Supreme God. The text itself on the primordial thingy only affirms the fact that there is a creator.
Anyway, here is a quote for you
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha
If you are using monotheistic teachings to argue, there is no way you can get your way. -
btw, i'm not constrained to what my master teaches.
I just cannot accept monotheism because it does not make sense.
I can accept any Buddhist teachers, Buddha, Bodhisattvas, sages sayings on Buddha Nature, because they are the same.
And don't use Primordial Buddha to justify your monotheistic ideas
The Primordial Buddha concept states that God in essence is not seperate from us because in the first place it is not personal, not something out there.
So much being said, I believe you already understood what I mean.
p.s. I have updated my post on 03 October 2005 · 01:25 AM just now. Pls read gtg now. late. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You are constraint to the teachings of bhuddhism. If you did some research, you will find out that each other religion also speaks of a Supreme God. A creator.
btw, i'm not constrained to what my master teaches.
I just cannot accept monotheism because it does not make sense.
I can accept any Buddhist teachers, Buddha, Bodhisattvas, sages sayings on Buddha Nature, because they are the same.
And don't use Primordial Buddha to justify your monotheistic ideas
The Primordial Buddha concept states that [b]God in essence is not seperate from us because in the first place it is not personal, not something out there.
So much being said, I believe you already understood what I mean.
p.s. I have updated my post on 03 October 2005 · 01:25 AM just now. Pls read gtg now. late.[/b]
What montheistic? Since when I said there is only 1 god?
I said there is a Supreme God. And below it are the many other Gods and celestials beings. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
And once again to remind you, the text are the views of the dalai lama. Anyway, why are you coming up with this mumbo jumbo? Im not even bringing in monotheistic stuff here.
The text outrightly rejects that there is an [b]independant, autonomous existencial God that exist. The term 'God' used in that context merely means your Buddha Nature, basic nature. Never in anyway can the notion of a personal God, Being, be accepted.
If you are using monotheistic teachings to argue, there is no way you can get your way.[/b] -
No. I dont have. Maybe I;ll do a search later.Originally posted by gamesharkuser:i dont whether the boy got possession is real or fake because i already went out
'any pic of namo puttaya?