Like to know wat is god/buddha? Not being rude here just like to find out more from Normal ppl dat understand wat dat..Pls do not cut and paste or link ..just tell me in the layman term..
Originally posted by [3Dd|E]:Like to know wat is god/buddha? Not being rude here just like to find out more from Normal ppl dat understand wat dat..Pls do not cut and paste or link ..just tell me in the layman term..
God is one of the 6 realms, human, animal, ghost, hell, god, asyura.
Anyone if behave in a good moral conduct after pass away, can born in god's realm.
Their lifespan is very long, very good living condition but still within the life cycle, so it is not the ultimate objectives and also not a object of refuge for buddhists.
In Buddhism.
God is someone who has everything in his way..
so God is human in buddhism..
Buddha is a teacher =/= God
double post
Whether there is god or not depends on what you mean by 'god'. If you are refering to the existence of an Absolute Essence, which is eternal, unconditioned and independent, as the underlying ontological source of all things in the world/universe, I would say there is NONE from the Buddha's perspective. This Absolute Essence as the ultimate reality, whether one calls it the Creator God,Brahman or Absolute at Zero Quantity (the sufis innovative tweaking of buddhist 'Emptiness'),is no more than just a FIGMENT of human IGNORANCE since the beginless beginning.
The big ERROR of mystical traditions of other major religions, such as Islam's sufism, is to reify, absolutize, hypostatize and objectify the gnosis experienced by these mystics. Such reification, hypostatization and objectification, lead to the GRASPING of the 'Empty' ultimate reality by the sufis as an absolute essence called God. In other words, these mystics failed to eliminate the working of our conceptual mind completely during their mystical exercise, like prayers. They are 'seeing' the ultimate reality through the lens of conceptual thought.
However, if your 'god' is refering to beings in the formless realms (deva) which is subject to suffering and the law of karma just like human, then I would say there are 'gods'.
A Buddha is one who has realised 'Emptiness' as the ultimate nature of reality, and lives his life according to this knowledge.
Shakyamuni Buddha is someone born 2500 years ago discovered the truth of life, the fact of suffering, the cause of
suffering, as well as the path to the end of suffering. He said that
all of us have Buddha Nature, and all of us can achieve the same
enlightenment as he did... and there continues to be practitioners who
achieves enlightenment even till this date.
The Buddha is someone who discovered the true nature of all phenomena
and broke free from all clingings, ignorance and deceit, and mental
afflictions... and hence achieved liberation from all suffering and the
cycle of rebirth and samsara (freedom from birth and death) and
experience the highest bliss of Nirvana.
A god is different from Buddha. A god is a celestial being in heaven, but he has not escaped from samsara or gained enlightenment. He will still be subjected to karma and rebirth within the 6 realms after his life ended (though it is a very very long life). Therefore the goal of Buddhism is not to become a god, or to be reborn in heaven.
We do not worship celestial beings also... actually we also don't really worship Buddha, but we pay deep respect and reverence for him and treat him as our greatest teacher. We ourselves aim to attain Buddhahood and enlightenment... through practicing his teachings.
Originally posted by Chenrezig:Whether there is god or not depends on what you mean by 'god'. If you are refering to the existence of an Absolute Essence, which is eternal, unconditioned and independent, as the underlying ontological source of all things in the world/universe, I would say there is NONE from the Buddha's perspective. This Absolute Essence as the ultimate reality, whether one calls it the Creator God,Brahman or Absolute at Zero Quantity (the sufis innovative tweaking of buddhist 'Emptiness'),is no more than just a FIGMENT of human IGNORANCE since the beginless beginning.
The big ERROR of mystical traditions of other major religions, such as Islam's sufism, is to reify, absolutize, hypostatize and objectify the gnosis experienced by these mystics. Such reification, hypostatization and objectification, lead to the GRASPING of the 'Empty' ultimate reality by the sufis as an absolute essence called God. In other words, these mystics failed to eliminate the working of our conceptual mind completely during their mystical exercise, like prayers. They are 'seeing' the ultimate reality through the lens of conceptual thought.
However, if your 'god' is refering to beings in the formless realms (deva) which is subject to suffering and the law of karma just like human, then I would say there are 'gods'.
A Buddha is one who has realised 'Emptiness' as the ultimate nature of reality, and lives his life according to this knowledge.
Not bad. But I doubt the topic starter will understand... hehe
Thks, At least i understand quite a bit more now, how 'us' human have make god/buddha so difficult to understand and so unreachable..=)
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Not bad. But I doubt the topic starter will understand... hehe
I don think by just understanding anything about god/buddha make u a better person den me if u don start learning/practice from wat they have taught u in a book/bible/etc. having doubt and making fun of yr own kind make me feel dat u have fail in understand wat u have just post , preacher don go far..=)
Im here to learn. =)
Originally posted by [3Dd|E]:
I don think by just understanding anything about god/buddha make u a better person den me if u don start learning/practice from wat they have taught u in a book/bible/etc. having doubt and making fun of yr own kind make me feel dat u have fail in understand wat u have just post , preacher don go far..=)
Im here to learn. =)
You totally misunderstood my intentions here. I have no intention of making fun of anyone.
I am telling Chenrezig, that though his post is well written, talking about ultimate reality to someone new is totally inappropriate. I do not think anyone (including me) when just starting to learn about Buddhism will understand about these things. Hence his post is inappropriate and out of context.
His reply is more suitable to someone who have misunderstood ultimate reality to be an ontological essence, or for someone having had a mystical/transcendental experience and reified that experience into an independent, ultimate entity. For your case I doubt you fall under either category, hence his post is like I said... inappropriate and out of context.
If you wish to learn about Shakyamuni Buddha, I recommend buying or borrowing a book on his life story.
我为佛神，神佛为我。
æ— æˆ‘æ— ç¥ž, æ— ä½›æ— æˆ‘
K。
What is Buddha?
I am.
Yet there is no me, no buddha, no god.
Originally posted by Kirby kelsg:What is Buddha?
I am.
Yet there is no me, no buddha, no god.
http://www.providencezen.org/oldnewsletter/v06n08-1978-august-dssn-q&ainwarsaw.html
Zen Master Seung Sahn:
When you are thinking, your mind, my mind, and all people's minds are different. If you cut through all thinking, your mind, my mind, and all people's minds are the same. The mind that cuts through all thinking is the true empty mind. The true empty mind is before thinking. Your substance is before thinking. Your substance is universal substance. Before thinking, there is no speech and no language. There is no God, no Buddha, no mountains, no rivers, no things at all. Thus, no form, no emptiness.
But, "before thinking" is truly just like this. No form, no emptiness is itself a clinging to emptiness. Put it down! Then, you will have no inside and no outside; you will attain the Absolute. Everything that you see, hear, taste, and smell is the truth. God is God, Buddha is Buddha, mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers. The truth is like this. Form is form, emptiness is emptiness.
------
Our moderator Thusness's Stage 4 (From Thusness's Six Stages of Experience):
....That experience is so
familiar, so real and so clear. It is the same experience of “I AM”….it
is without thought, without concepts, without intermediary, without
anyone there, without any in-between…What is it? IT is Presence! But
this time it is not ‘I AM’, it is not asking ‘who am I’, it is not the
pure sense of “I AM”, it is ‘TONGSss….’, the pure Sound…
Then come Taste, just the Taste and nothing else….
The heart beats…..
the Scenery…
There is no gap in between, no longer a few months gap for it to arise…
There never was a stage to enter, no I to cease and never has it existed
There is no entry and exit point…
There is no Sound out there or in here…
There is no ‘I’ apart from the arising and ceasing…
The manifold of Presence….
Moment to moment Presences unfolds…
....the attention is shifted to experiencing pure presence rest in being authenticated by mere phenomenon. There is no more resistance towards phenomena manifestation, the ‘illusion’ of a background is seen and effort to sink back to a void background diminishes substantially.
知者�言，言者�知。
At times, there is no need to explain, for no explaination can truly point the way. At times, the more you try to explain, the more it clouds the mind.
You have to experience it yourself. Just let go. Relaxed. Experience emptiness.
K。
Heh. It is often our own mind that tie us down.
We have to be perfect. We are dirty, dumb, selfish, etc. etc.
NO!
Just let go. Relaxed.
æ”¾ä¸‹å± åˆ€ï¼Œç«‹åœ°æˆ�佛。
This is no just a simple saying. It is really, really that simple. Just let go. When you let go, truly let go, even for a brief moment, you can attain.
K.
Strange enough, I am not a buddhist. There is no buddha, how to be buddhist?
Originally posted by Kirby kelsg:知者�言，言者�知。
At times, there is no need to explain, for no explaination can truly point the way. At times, the more you try to explain, the more it clouds the mind.
You have to experience it yourself. Just let go. Relaxed. Experience emptiness.
è�©æ��æœ¬æ— æ ‘ï¼Œæ˜Žé•œäº¦é�žå�°ï¼Œæœ¬æ�¥æ— 一物，何处惹尘埃 。
K。
Let go and relax is important.
But Emptiness is also not different from the words appearing on the screen right now, the sound of my stereo, sensation of typing on keyboard. As Heart Sutra states, Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.
Also, as Thusness said before, "Non-conceptuality is just the beginning, it is far from the
totality of our marvelous nature's manifestation. Use words and engage
in speeches, dirty your hands and walk on!"
The Vimalakirti Sutra:
Then the venerable Sariputra said to the goddess, "Goddess, how long have you been in this house?"
The goddess replied, "I have been here as long as the elder has been in liberation."
Sariputra said, "Then, have you been in this house for quite some time?"
The goddess said, "Has the elder been in liberation for quite some time?"
At that, the elder Sariputra fell silent.
The
goddess continued, "Elder, you are 'foremost of the wise!' Why do you
not speak? Now, when it is your turn, you do not answer the question."
Sariputra: Since liberation is inexpressible, goddess, I do not know what to say.
Goddess:
All the syllables pronounced by the elder have the nature of
liberation. Why? Liberation is neither internal nor external, nor can
it be apprehended apart from them. Likewise, syllables are neither
internal nor external, nor can they be apprehended anywhere else.
Therefore, reverend Sariputra, do not point to liberation by abandoning
speech! Why? The holy liberation is the equality of all things!
Hui-Neng's poem 'Pu Ti Ben Wu Shu' is Pian Kong (lean towards voidness) and does not reflect the realisation of non-duality. Regarding Hui-Neng I just wrote this in another forum some days back, and this is not just my own claims but also based on what my Taiwanese teacher, our moderator Thusness, Master Yuan Yin, and other teachers have said:
It should also be noted that when Hui-Neng wrote
the 'Pu Ti Ben Wu Shu' or 'Bodhi originally has no tree' poem, he has
not attained great awakening yet. At that point in time, he only
understood the formless aspect of Awareness, like the AMness
experience. If you read that poem -- every line is talking about the
formless, forever untainted aspect of awareness. He has not experienced
the non-dual (that Mind and Form are one) aspect at that time, and so
the 5th patriarch wiped the poem off with his shoes and proclaimed that
he has not attained (many people thought this is to ward off jealousy
but it is not only that) -- and it is only later when they met and 5th
patriarch is giving his commentary on Diamond Sutra, Hui-Neng had his
Great Awakening and woke up to the non-dual nature of reality.
When the famous 6th Zen Patriarch Hui-Neng attained Great Awakening, this is what happened:
Knowing
what his message meant, in the third watch of the night I went to his
room. Using the robe as a screen so that none could see us, he
expounded the Diamond Sutra to me. When he came to the sentence, "One
should use one's mind in such a way that it will be free from any
attachment," I at once became thoroughly enlightened, and realized that all things in the universe are the Essence of Mind itself.
"Who
would have thought," I said to the Patriarch, "that the Essence of Mind
is intrinsically pure! Who would have thought that the Essence of Mind
is intrinsically free from becoming or annihilation! Who would have
thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically self-sufficient! Who
would have thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically free from
change! Who would have thought that all things are the manifestation of the Essence of Mind!"
Knowing that I had realized the Essence of Mind, the Patriarch said,
"For him who does not know his own mind there is no use learning
Buddhism.
Good grief. Quoting Sutras. Words of others.
While these can show the way, it is not the way.
What have you learn from all these? The chap that got enlighten under the tree, he ain't quoting no sutras! Nor did he read any! At least, not of the Buddhism sort.
If you want to gain enlightenment. You need not read ALL the Sutras. You need to ponder upon them. And when you understand them, then there is no need to read any more. They are saying the same thing!
However, if you want to spread buddhism, then you must learn to:
�人说人�，�鬼说鬼�。
And quoting sutras to layman... is like: �人说神����
For crying out loud, even yourself have quoted: "For him who does not know his own mind there is no use learning Buddhism."
Where or what is your mind?
K.
Originally posted by Kirby kelsg:Good grief. Quoting Sutras. Words of others.
While these can show the way, it is not the way.
What have you learn from all these? The chap that got enlighten under the tree, he ain't quoting no sutras! Nor did he read any! At least, not of the Buddhism sort.
If you want to gain enlightenment. You need not read ALL the Sutras. You need to ponder upon them. And when you understand them, then there is no need to read any more. They are saying the same thing!
However, if you want to spread buddhism, then you must learn to:
�人说人�，�鬼说鬼�。
And quoting sutras to layman... is like: �人说神����
For crying out loud, even yourself have quoted: "For him who does not know his own mind there is no use learning Buddhism."
Where or what is your mind?
K.
Will you please behave yourself ... You are not respecting yourself by shouting out so loud ..
Originally posted by Kirby kelsg:However, if you want to spread buddhism, then you must learn to:
�人说人�，�鬼说鬼�。
And quoting sutras to layman... is like: �人说神����
Layman also have Buddha Nature. Who say they can't understand the wisdom of Buddha? Just waiting to be uncovered. Of course... with the right conditions. I only quote appropriate text in the appropriate situation.
For crying out loud, even yourself have quoted: "For him who does not know his own mind there is no use learning Buddhism."
Where or what is your mind?
Mind IS, but where does not apply. Whatever heard, seen, smelled, touched, is Mind. 'Where' does not apply, in the seen there is just the seen, in the heard just the heard. No separate cognizer. And what is seen, heard etc does not make up or link up into a locality -- only a bunch of disjoint yet complete sensations. They're like bubbles, ephemeral, like a mirage, like an illusion. None of them make up an entity, location, etc.
Mind is non-dual and cannot be found by looking for it (for that would imply the duality of looker and looked). Whatever IS, IS Mind (mountains, rivers, sky...)
Mind is manifesting right now as everything (everything seen, heard, smelled, etc), so it's nature is luminous clarity. Everything is insubstantial, empty of anything graspable, or any independent essence, being dependently originated its essence is empty. Being empty, locality does not apply.
Everything is Mind Only.
p.s. on non locality:
When causes and condition is, vision manifest, appearance of locality manifest but does not mean there is truly 'location'. We believe we reside in a specific locality because we think what we see is solid -- truly 'out there'. But if I put you in a virtual reality machine like the matrix, and give you the illusion of seeing from outer space, you might think it is real also... but it's just like an illusion. When condition is, it appears... but it's empty of any solid reality or locality. Whatever we experience is like that -- only appearances. Due to certain conditions we see red flower, due to certain conditions dog sees black. Doesn't mean there is truly a black flower or red flower out there. Due to certain conditions some people see spirits, some don't. If scientists develope quantum glasses, one may see 99.999% void. All just conditions, dependently originated appearances... empty. Like a dream. Like a magic trick. Yet all is Mind Only.
Originally posted by Kirby kelsg:知者�言，言者�知。
At times, there is no need to explain, for no explaination can truly point the way. At times, the more you try to explain, the more it clouds the mind.
You have to experience it yourself. Just let go. Relaxed. Experience emptiness.
è�©æ��æœ¬æ— æ ‘ï¼Œæ˜Žé•œäº¦é�žå�°ï¼Œæœ¬æ�¥æ— 一物，何处惹尘埃 。
K。
Just gotta love Hui Neng's explaination.
Originally posted by [3Dd|E]:Like to know wat is god/buddha? Not being rude here just like to find out more from Normal ppl dat understand wat dat..Pls do not cut and paste or link ..just tell me in the layman term..
Buddha is a characteristic representing courage, wisdom and diamond-like endurance of human kind rather than a supernatural being.."Rely on the Law rather than on the Person" was taught by Shakyamuni Buddha on his death-bed
Originally posted by Kirby kelsg:Good grief. Quoting Sutras. Words of others.
While these can show the way, it is not the way.
What have you learn from all these? The chap that got enlighten under the tree, he ain't quoting no sutras! Nor did he read any! At least, not of the Buddhism sort.
If you want to gain enlightenment. You need not read ALL the Sutras. You need to ponder upon them. And when you understand them, then there is no need to read any more. They are saying the same thing!
However, if you want to spread buddhism, then you must learn to:
�人说人�，�鬼说鬼�。
And quoting sutras to layman... is like: �人说神����
For crying out loud, even yourself have quoted: "For him who does not know his own mind there is no use learning Buddhism."
Where or what is your mind?
K.
Actually i think it is okay to quote from the sutra as long as the example is appropriate to the reader. A simple verse from the sutra can also enlightened somebody by chance or simply clarify somebody's doubts. Just as what happen to Hui neng who listen to the Diamond sutra and was suddenly enlightened. Though one must have very good roots in order to attain sudden enlightenment.
I have to agreed with both of you. For him who does not know his mind, there is no use learning Buddhism :)