Infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha
Mesbah Javid
and one other individual, followed by their response. ....
Letter one: from two Baha'is to the Universal House of Justice
The Universal House of Justice.
Dear Friends,
Several related questions concerning the infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha and the authority and interpretation of certain of His statements have been troubling us recently. Our questions may be set out as follows:
(1) Does Baha'u'llah explicitly state and define the infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha anywhere in His writings?
We are aware of many of the statements about Abdu'l-Baha, which are usually quoted from the writings of Baha'u'llah. We are also aware of Baha'u'llah's statement concerning the degrees of infallibility and the Most Great Infallibility of the Manifestations of God. While the former statements certainly strongly imply the infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha and leave no possible excuse for Baha'is to not follow and obey Him, we have been unable to discover, either in the writings of Baha'u'llah or in the writings and authenticated statements of Abdu'l-Baha, any explicit statement concerning Abdu'l-Baha's infallibility.
(2) What is the authority of the writings and authenticated utterances of Abdu'l-Baha concerning subjects not directly related to the Baha'i Faith, or to religion in General?
The Guardian states that his (the Guardian's) infallibility applies only to statements related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings. He says that he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. Do these statements also apply to Abdu'l-Baha?
(3) Can certain statements of Abdu'l-Baha, not directly related to the Baha'i Faith, be taken as true only relative to the time and place in which they were made, or are they a more universal expression of truth?
In particular we are interested in some of Abdu'l-Baha's statements concerning scientific subjects. Can these statements be understood in the context of the early twentieth century audience to whom they were made (and hence be taken as possibly a lesser expression of the truth than is found in present day science), or are they more complete statements of truth which future science will discover and corroborate?
For example, Abdu'l-Baha makes several statements concerning the ether, a hypothetical medium through which light waves propagate. To an early twentieth century audience with some scientific knowledge, these statements would have been instantly comprehensible and would have powerfully reinforced the points which Abdu'l-Baha wished to make. Present-day scientific theories, however, do not use the concept of the ether and indeed it is believed on good evidence that an ether of the form used in the nineteenth century theories does not exist. Are we then to take Abdu'l-Baha's statements concerning the ether to be statements of truth more complete than those of present-day science, and perhaps attempt to construct a "Baha'i theory of the ether", or can these statements be interpreted in the context of the time in which they were made? We also see difficulties in interpreting Abdu'l-Baha's statements concerning evolution.
We should be most grateful for any information or comments that could help us to resolve these questions.
With warmest Baha'i love,
Ron House,
[other name removed]
Letter two: response from the Universal House of Justice
BAHA'I WORLD CENTRE
Department of the Secretariat 3 June 1982
[The above date was accidentally shown as 1981 in the original - RH.]
Mr. Ron House
Mr. ______
Dear Baha'i Friends,
The Universal House of Justice has asked us to acknowledge your letter of April 28 and to make the following comments concerning your three questions.
- It was the express wish of Baha'u'llah that after Him the friends should
"turn" to 'Abdu'l-Baha. Baha'u'llah also said in His Book of Laws that
anything that was not clear in His Writings should be "referred" to His Most
Mighty Branch springing from the Ancient Root. (See "The World Order of
Baha'u'llah" pages 134-135.) In one of the Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Baha published
in "Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha" (page 214) He quotes the
passages mentioned above and interprets them to mean that "whatever He
('Abdu'l-Baha) saith is the very truth". 'Abdu'l-Baha further says, referring
to those who do not accept Him as the Interpreter of the Word of God, "Whoso
deviates from my interpretation is a victim of his own fancy" ("The World
Order of Baha'u'llah" page 138). Moreover, in the "Star of the West" Volume
XII, page 227, 'Abdu'l-Baha interprets the verses from the "Tablet of the
Branch" to mean "...whatsoever His (Abdu'l-Baha's) pen records, that is
correct...."
- There is nothing in the Writings that would lead us to the conclusion that
what Shoghi Effendi says about himself concerning statements on subjects not
directly related to the Faith also applies to 'Abdu'l-Baha. Instead we have
assertions which indicate that 'Abdu'l-Baha's position in the Faith is one for
which we find "no parallel" in past Dispensations. For example, Baha'u'llah,
in addition to His reference to the Centre of His Covenant as the "Mystery of
God", states that 'Abdu'l-Baha should be regarded as God's "exalted Handiwork"
and "a Word which God hath adorned with the ornament of His Own Self, and made
it sovereign over the earth and all that there is therein..." And from Shoghi
Effendi we have the incontrovertible statement that the Guardian of the Faith
while "overshadowed" by the "protection'' of Baha'u'llah and of the Bab,
"remains essentially human", whereas in respect of 'Abdu'l-Baha Shoghi Effendi
categorically states that "in the person of 'Abdu'l-Baha the incompatible
characteristics of a human nature and superhuman knowledge and perfection have
been blended and are completely harmonized."
- With reference to your question about the "ether", the various definitions of this word as given in the Oxford English Dictionary all refer to a physical reality, for instance, "an element", "a substance", "a medium", all of which imply a physical and objective reality and, as you say, this was the concept posited by nineteenth century scientists to explain the propagation of light waves. It would have been understood in this sense by the audiences whom 'Abdu'l-Baha was addressing. However, in Chapter XVI of "Some Answered Questions", 'Abdu'l-Baha devotes a whole chapter to explaining the difference between things which are "perceptible to the senses" which He calls "objective or sensible", and realities of the "intellect" which have "no outward form and no place", and are "not perceptible to the senses". He gives examples of both "kinds" of "human knowledge". The first kind is obvious and does not need elaboration. To illustrate the second kind the examples He gives are: love, grief, happiness, the power of the intellect, the human spirit and "ethereal matter". (In the original Persian the word "ethereal" is the same as "etheric".) He states clearly that "Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible." In other words, the "ether" is a concept arrived at intellectually to explain certain phenomena. In due course, when scientists failed to confirm the physical existence of the "ether" by delicate experiments, they constructed other intellectual concepts to explain the same phenomena.
In considering the whole field of divinely conferred "infallibility" one must be careful to avoid the literal understanding and petty-mindedness that has so often characterised discussions of this matter in the Christian world. The Manifestation of God (and, to a lesser degree, 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi,) has to convey tremendous concepts covering the whole field of human life and activity to people whose present knowledge and degree of understanding are far below His. He must use the limited medium of human language against the limited and often erroneous background of His audience's traditional knowledge and current understanding to raise them to a wholly new level of awareness and behaviour. It is a human tendency, against which the Manifestation warns us, to measure His statements against the inaccurate standard of the acquired knowledge of mankind. We tend to take them and place them within one or other of the existing categories of human philosophy or science while, in reality, they transcend these and will, if properly understood, open new and vast horizons to our understanding.
Some sayings of the Manifestation are clear and obvious. Among these are laws of behaviour. Others are elucidations which lead men from their present level of understanding to a new one. Others are pregnant allusions, the significance of which only becomes apparent as the knowledge and understanding of the reader grow. And all are integral parts of one great Revelation intended to raise mankind to a new level of its evolution.
It may well be that we shall find some statement is couched in terms familiar to the audience to which it was first addressed, but is strange now to us. For example, in answer to a question about Baha'u'llah's reference to the "Fourth Heaven" in the Kitab-i-Iqan, the Guardian's secretary wrote on his behalf:
"Regarding the ascension of His Holiness Christ to the fourth heaven revealed in the Book of Certitude, Shoghi Effendi says that the phrase 'fourth heaven' is used to conform with the ancient astronomers' terms and theories which were upheld by the followers of the Shi'ih sect, and since the Book of Certitude was originally revealed for the guidance of that sect, the above phrase, therefore, was used in conformity with their theories."
(Translated from the Arabic)
In studying such statements, however, we must have the humility to appreciate the limitations of our own knowledge and outlook, and strive always to understand the purpose of Baha'u'llah in making them, trying to look upon Him with His own eyes, as it were.
It is hoped that the above explanations will prove useful to you in your study of the subjects in which you have expressed interest.
With loving Baha'i greetings,
_____
For Department of the Secretariat
cc: The International Teaching Centre
(end of original message)
Bruce
Ron House wrote in message <37E1B387...@usq.edu.au>...
>Mesbah Javid wrote:
>>
>> Note: first is a letter to the Universal House of Justice from Ron
>> House
>> and one other individual, followed by their response. ....
>>
>Thank you for posting the evidence that even the UHJ can't find any
>proof that 'Abdu'l-Baha is infallible.
>
>--
>Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
And the fact of Abdu'l-Baha's fallibility has been neatly demonstrated here.
Mesbah Javid
Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:37E1B387...@usq.edu.au...
| Mesbah Javid wrote:
| >
| > Note: first is a letter to the Universal House of
Justice from Ron
| >
House
| > and one other individual, followed by their
response. ....
|
-------------------------
| >
| Thank you for posting the evidence that even the UHJ can't
find any
| proof that 'Abdu'l-Baha is infallible.
|
| --
| Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
|
| Evil follows on the heels of sloppy thinking.
Ron House
>
> Note: first is a letter to the Universal House of Justice from Ron
> House
> and one other individual, followed by their response. ....
Carol Ann
"Mesbah Javid" <1111117...@3web.net> wrote:
> You haven't much changed since 20 years ago!
>
> Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:37E1B387...@usq.edu.au...
> | Mesbah Javid wrote:
> | >
> Justice from Ron
> | >
> House
> | > and one other individual, followed by their
> response. ....
> |
> | >
> | Thank you for posting the evidence that even the UHJ can't
> find any
> | proof that 'Abdu'l-Baha is infallible.
> |
> | --
> | Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
> |
> | Evil follows on the heels of sloppy thinking.
I think the first point is that we were to obey the Teachings, that
Abdu'l-Baha was the Appointed Center of the Faith after Baha'u'llah
died, and that we (Baha'is) were to obey him (in the sense that his
interpretation was considered authoritative, or "infallible"). The
second point is that the chain: infallibility/authoritative
interpretation/one Central Interpreter is meant to force Baha'is to
adhere to one central interpretation of the Teachings. SO that we would
not have the problem we now have, of schism, sectarianism (schism means
division, parting of ways, usually accompanied by acrimony, sect means a
group of people who originally adhered to one creed breaking away and
somehow or other altering their creed so as to not be confused with the
originating group, and I don't see anywhere that increase in numbers, or
decrease, or size of the group has anything to do with anything), and
acrimony. Abdu'l-Baha was clearly appointed by Baha'u'llah as the
Center, Shoghi Effendi was clearly appointed by Abdu'l-Baha, and
then...chaos, many different interpretations, schisms and sects.
Incidentally, people keep going off on a wild goose chase when they try
to prove that Abdu'l-Baha was not an infallible Spiritual Interpreter
because his scientific knowledge was not "up" to late 20th century
standards. This is irrelevant to whether he was the Appointed
Interpreter of the Teachings.
Best regards,
>
>
--
Carol Ann
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bruce
usual, you don't address the issue.
Mesbah Javid <1111117...@3web.net> wrote in message
<7rsf03$gp4$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca>...
>You haven't much changed since 20 years ago!
>| Thank you for posting the evidence that even the UHJ can't
Mesbah Javid
news:7rtokk$sei$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
| Well, Javid, are you addressing this astute observation at
| Ron or at me. As usual, you don't address the issue.
|
observations to you. When you claim Abdu'l-Baha was
fallible, I don't blame you, but I don't expect a person
like Ron to say that. The problem is not with you but rather
with Ron. I can't believe this guy. You, nay no problem, you
can say that because you broke the Covenant long ago and we
expect nothing from you favorable about the Faith, but Ron,
this guy is not yet a Covenant breaker and I still have some
hopes in him.
John Davey-Hatcher
not to doupt in any way his guidance in understandg the massage of
Baha'u'llah. It is clear in the covenant that Abdu'l-Baha has the sole
authority as interpreter of the faith and it is clear in the last will and
testament of Abdu'l-Baha that that authority extends into the Guardianship.
In terms of Baha'u'llahs directions we should treat the writings of
Abdu'l-Baha as infallible and follow the covenant. If there are errors, God
will make it right and we are in no position to even come close to the lofty
station that Abdu''l-Baha has.
John
Mesbah Javid <1111117...@3web.net> wrote in message
news:7rsf03$gp4$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca...
> You haven't much changed since 20 years ago!
>
> Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:37E1B387...@usq.edu.au...
> | Mesbah Javid wrote:
> | >
> | > Note: first is a letter to the Universal House of
> Justice from Ron
> | >
> House
> | > and one other individual, followed by their
> response. ....
> |
> -------------------------
Carol Ann
"John Davey-Hatcher" <daveyh...@interhop.net> wrote:
> I think everyone would agree that Abdu'l-Baha made mistakes. However we are
> not to doupt in any way his guidance in understandg the massage of
> Baha'u'llah. It is clear in the covenant that Abdu'l-Baha has the sole
> authority as interpreter of the faith and it is clear in the last will and
> testament of Abdu'l-Baha that that authority extends into the Guardianship.
> In terms of Baha'u'llahs directions we should treat the writings of
> Abdu'l-Baha as infallible and follow the covenant. If there are errors, God
> will make it right and we are in no position to even come close to the lofty
> station that Abdu''l-Baha has.
>
> John
Thank you. This is the point that needs to be made and understood.
K. Paul Johnson
: |
: No Bruce, you are ok and I am not addressing astute
: observations to you. When you claim Abdu'l-Baha was
: fallible, I don't blame you, but I don't expect a person
: like Ron to say that. The problem is not with you but rather
: with Ron. I can't believe this guy. You, nay no problem, you
: can say that because you broke the Covenant long ago and we
: expect nothing from you favorable about the Faith, but Ron,
: this guy is not yet a Covenant breaker and I still have some
: hopes in him.
Since the Baha'i Faith is not a religion that believes in
allowing its members total freedom to say whatever they want
involving the Faith publicly; since the right to declare anyone a
covenant-breaker is explicitly denied individual Baha'is; can't
someone in authority tell Mr. Javid to stop doing so?
Bruce
It probably serves the authorities purposes to have the threat of being
branded CB leveled against one even if it is from such a dubious source as
Javid. It can be another way of maintaining internal control.
Stuart S
Abdul Baha wrote:
Fifteen centuries after Christ, Luther, who was originally one of the
twelve
members of a Catholic religious body at the center of the
Papal government and
later on initiated the Protestant religious belief,
opposed the Pope on
certain points of doctrine ..." (Secret of Divine
Civilization, 41-42)
What body was this ? Can you show me a respected historical source that
will verify this information ?
Peace,
Stuart
Mesbah Javid wrote:
> John Davey-Hatcher <daveyh...@interhop.net> wrote in
> message news:7s2lcg$m61$1...@news.auaracom.net...
> | I think everyone would agree that Abdu'l-Baha made
> mistakes.
>
> Just tell us one of His mistakes.
Pat Kohli
Stuart S wrote:
> Abdul Baha wrote:
>
> Fifteen centuries after Christ, Luther, who was originally one of the
> twelve
> members of a Catholic religious body at the center of the
> Papal government and
> later on initiated the Protestant religious belief,
> opposed the Pope on
> certain points of doctrine ..." (Secret of Divine
> Civilization, 41-42)
>
> What body was this ?
Dr. Luther was an Augustinian Friar. More likely this was one of 12 major
orders centered at Rome. His differences w/ the Papal government are a
matter of public knowledge and hopefully are not in question.
Blessings!
- Pat
Bruce
Pat Kohli wrote in message <37E8220F...@ameritel.net>...
But Luther was not centered in Rome nor was he part of the papal government
. His life, including his chronic constipation, is well documented.
Abdu'l-Baha, as he was concerning the Buddha and Buddhism, was quite wrong
about Luther.
Pat Kohli
Bruce wrote:
> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37E8220F...@ameritel.net>...
> >Greetings!
> >
> >Dr. Luther was an Augustinian Friar. More likely this was one of 12 major
> >orders centered at Rome. His differences w/ the Papal government are a
> >matter of public knowledge and hopefully are not in question.
> >
> >Blessings!
> >- Pat
>
> But Luther was not centered in Rome nor was he part of the papal government
> . His life, including his chronic constipation, is well documented.
> Abdu'l-Baha, as he was concerning the Buddha and Buddhism, was quite wrong
> about Luther.
The Dr. Luther was an Augustinian theologian. The Augustinian Order is not an
Anabaptist organization, but a Roman Catholic one. The Papal government was
not just in Rome, but reached out across western Europe in the 15th and 16th
centuries. These various orders (such as Dominican, Franciscan, etc.) were a
means of influencing the populations of western Europe for Roman Catholicism.
If anyone chooses to believe that Luther was always a Lutheran (even a
chronically constipated one), and never a Roman clergyman, that is on them.
Blessings!
Bruce
assessment was less than accurate, which is not unusual for him when it
comes to other religions.
Bruce
>The Dr. Luther was an Augustinian theologian. The Augustinian Order is not
an
>Anabaptist organization, but a Roman Catholic one. The Papal government
was
>not just in Rome, but reached out across western Europe in the 15th and
16th
>centuries. These various orders (such as Dominican, Franciscan, etc.) were
a
>means of influencing the populations of western Europe for Roman
Catholicism.
>
>If anyone chooses to believe that Luther was always a Lutheran (even a
>chronically constipated one), and never a Roman clergyman, that is on them.
>
>Blessings!
Show us in any history of Luther would support this statement:
"was originally one of twelve members of a Catholic religious body at
the center of the Papal government"
Being a member of a religious order does not make one automatically an
original 12 member "a Catholic religious body at the center of the Papal
government."
Mesbah Javid
| Show us in any history of Luther would support this
statement:
|
information in the history books. If you are right then in
the near future new history books will incorporate the truth
stated by Abdu'l-Baha.
Carol Ann
"Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37E8220F...@ameritel.net>...
> >Greetings!
> >
> >
> >> Abdul Baha wrote:
> >>
> >> Fifteen centuries after Christ, Luther, who was originally one of
the
> >> members of a Catholic religious body at the center of
the
> >> later on initiated the Protestant religious
belief,
> >> opposed the Pope on
> >> certain points of doctrine ..." (Secret of Divine
> >> Civilization, 41-42)
> >>
> >> What body was this ?
> >
major
> >orders centered at Rome. His differences w/ the Papal government are
a
> >matter of public knowledge and hopefully are not in question.
> >
> >Blessings!
> >- Pat
>
> But Luther was not centered in Rome nor was he part of the papal
government
> . His life, including his chronic constipation, is well documented.
> Abdu'l-Baha, as he was concerning the Buddha and Buddhism, was quite
wrong
> about Luther.
>
>
See posts on trb re this matter.
--
Carol Ann
infallible because he made some "mistake" or other. Aside from the
fact that a lot of the mistakes are due to poor interpretations from
the Farsi and Arabic, and since we cannot go back to the original words
that we are arguing over, and since many arguments are over what it was
reported that Abdu'l-Baha said and not over what we can find as
authentic writings of his, I think the argument is moot. Abdu'l-Baha was
appointed the Center of the Faith by Baha'u'llah. He was the appointed
interpreter of the Teachings. He was not the appointed historian,
scientific authority, etc. He was the Exemplar. His life was an
example of how we should live. His understanding of the Teachings was
such that Baha'u'llah trusted him to interpret them to the next
generation(s) of Baha'is. Abdu'l-Baha subsequently appointed Shoghi
Effendi in a similar role as interpreter. SHoghi Effendi said that he
was not to be considered infallible in other fields than in the
Teachings. Now, maybe we should say: authoritative, court of last
recourse, or some such, and forget the word infallible.
Please.
Bruce
>
>Bruce <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
>news:7s9hh3$6uq$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
>| Show us in any history of Luther would support this
>statement:
>|
> Thanks for bringing to our attention the lack of proper
>information in the history books. If you are right then in
>the near future new history books will incorporate the truth
>
Why would history books knowingly incorporate something that is obviously
not true? Whjat you are suggesting has already been tried in the USSR.
Bruce
>> But Luther was not centered in Rome nor was he part of the papal
>government
>> . His life, including his chronic constipation, is well documented.
>> Abdu'l-Baha, as he was concerning the Buddha and Buddhism, was quite
>wrong
>> about Luther.
>>
>>
>Actually, in this case Abdu'l-Baha was the victim of bad translations.
>See posts on trb re this matter.
>--
>Carol Ann
His mistaken comments about Luther or his mistaken comments about the Buddha
and Buddhism?
Bruce
>SHoghi Effendi said that he
>was not to be considered infallible in other fields than in the
>Teachings.
>
>Carol Ann
Could you cite Shoghi Effendi stating this. Obviously, then, his comments
about Buddhism, for example, are not to be looked upon as being necessarily
true.
Mark A. Foster
>>Now, maybe we should say: authoritative, court of last recourse, or some
such, and forget the word infallible.<<
Yes! Or replace it with some word like sinlessness or moral perfection.
Mark A. Foster
ow...@sociologist.com
RBCF Mark (on AOL only)
David Fiorito and Jennifer Spotila
Abdu'l-Baha was not so wrong on this one. Buddhism today is not what it
was. It is splintered and in some areas corrupt. I have seen Buddhists
kill in the name of their beliefs. There is strife and conflict in the name
of Buddhism. Does that mean it is all bad? No. But it does lend credence
to the statements of Abdu'l-Baha.
Peace,
Dave
Bruce wrote in message <7samov$o5k$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce wrote in message <7scc6v$j0b$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
>Dave,
>
>> "I have seen the quote you refer to about Buddhism and I would say
>that Abdu'l-Baha was not so wrong on this one.Buddhism today is not
>what it was. It is splintered and in some areas corrupt. I have seen
>Buddhists kill in the name of their beliefs. There is strife and conflict
>in the name of Buddhism. Does that mean it is all bad? No. But it
>does lend credence to the statements of Abdu'l-Baha." <
>
>Credence to AB.
>
> Buddha also established a new religion, and
> Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their
> institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and
> rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued
> in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder
> of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the
> Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His
> doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and
> ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in
> the worship of statues and images.
>
Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which is the
institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on that
count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since the
Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god.
AB certainly could not show that the Buddha taught some sort of onenees of
god, and I have yet to see a Baha'i show that the Buddha taught the oneness
Mesbah Javid
the death your right to tell such lies.
Bruce <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:7sce99$k46$1...@grandprime.binc.net...
Carol Ann
"Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> > "I have seen the quote you refer to about Buddhism and I would say
> that Abdu'l-Baha was not so wrong on this one.Buddhism today is not
> what it was. It is splintered and in some areas corrupt. I have seen
> Buddhists kill in the name of their beliefs. There is strife and
conflict
> in the name of Buddhism. Does that mean it is all bad? No. But it
> does lend credence to the statements of Abdu'l-Baha." <
>
> Credence to AB.
>
>
>
> institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on that
> count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since the
> Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god.
I think we need to be cautious here. There are no original writings of
the Buddha. The earliest known Buddhist writings are 1900 years old,
which makes them 700 years after the life of the Buddha. Who knows what
sorts of changes were wrought in those 700 years? I would feel more
comfortable stating what the Buddha taught if I could read His original
teachings. Otherwise, I would tend to believe tht what is Buddhism now
is transformed by time and tradition.
AB certainly did not do so,
> and I have yet to see a Baha'i show that the Buddha taught the oneness
> of god. The Buddha's doctrines have disappeared and have been replace
> by statue worship? Since Buddhists, like Catholics (of whom AB made
> the same silly claim), do not worship statues, AB in this hyperbolic
> statement is quite wrong. And the Buddha's doctrines certainly have
not
> disappeared, making him wrong again.
Would you agree that they might have been transformed by oral reporting
and tradition, or do you think that people managed to keep the doctrine
pure while transmitting it this way? If so, you know, we could discuss
this and still never come to a conclusion.
>
> AB has also said (though I understand that this is not official, the
fact
> that this is published by a Baha'i publishing trust would indicate
that the
> confidence is high that this reflects what he has said):
>
> The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child,
> and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged
> man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything.
> (" Abdu'l-Baha in London: Addresses, and Notes of Conversations"
> (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1987), pp. 63-64)
>
> Contrary to this highly insulting and hostile remark, Buddhism is
> certainly doing better the West that is Baha'i, which would indicate
that
> the teachings of the Buddha are certainly very much alive, well and
> speaking to the hearts of women and men, more so than is Baha'i.
>
Well, if through time the Teachings of the Buddha have been transformed,
then maybe they are not "pure" any more, but are more the product of
what people thought was meant than what was originally taught. Now, if
that is the case, then the spirit of Buddha's Teachings may have been
transformed.
> You state:
>
> > "Buddhism today is not what it was." <
>
> Of course not. It is older and wiser, having 2500 years of broad and
> rich experience to draw from.
>
>
> > "There is strife and conflict in the name of Buddhism." <
>
> Goodness, and there is no strife and conflict in the name of Baha'i?
Ha!
> All one needs to do is read these newsgroups for a while.
>
>
I think in all fairness to all parties, we should be aware that every
major faith has foolish believers, and that does not make the faith less
valid. I don't know that I would dismiss any Teachings based on the
behavior of the followers.
A little coolness is necessary. Trying for a spirit of detachment, I
believe that currently very few followers of any major faith adhere very
well to the basic tenets of that faith, be it Buddhist, Baha'i,
Christian or Muslim. I once told my daughters I didn't care if they
chose to become Christians or some other religion rather than Baha'is,
because what I wanted was for them to follow God's basic Teachings, and
to accept responsibility for their behavior and accept the outcomes from
their behavior.
Best regards,
Bruce
> I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to
>the death your right to tell such lies.
Show me they are lies. You can't do it, can you?
Bruce
Bruce wrote in message <7sd3m9$v03$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
is simply and profoundly wrong about Buddhism.
>
>
Pat Kohli
Carol Ann wrote:
> In article <7scc6v$j0b$1...@grandprime.binc.net>,
> "Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
> > Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which is the
> > institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on that
> > count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since the
> > Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god.
>
> I think we need to be cautious here. There are no original writings of
> the Buddha. The earliest known Buddhist writings are 1900 years old,
> which makes them 700 years after the life of the Buddha. Who knows what
> sorts of changes were wrought in those 700 years? I would feel more
> comfortable stating what the Buddha taught if I could read His original
> teachings. Otherwise, I would tend to believe tht what is Buddhism now
> is transformed by time and tradition.
One principle is applied to validate the Gospels: that believers would not
tamper with their text, even when they suffer from imaginative
interpretations of that text. I see no reason to suppose that the texts
generally attributed to Buddha Gotama are inaccurate.
One of the problems I see in the occidentalization of Buddhism is that since
its underlying theological constructs are incompatible w/ Christian
theological constructs (it couldn't be a Christian denomination), Buddhism
gets represented as a philosophy, rather than a faith. Though practical
agnosticism may be compatible w/ Buddhism, and though the Buddha certainly
gave no long sermons on the importance of the many gods of India of His day,
to allege, as Bruce does, that Buddha rejected a creator, is simply a piece
of sophistry. Monotheism is introduced as a strawman, found incompatible w/
Buddhism, and then factual error is concluded - that Blessed Buddha rejected
the Creator.
The fact of the matter is that Blessed Buddha certainly does not reject the
Creator - Brahma. The fact of the matter is that Blessed Buddha taught that
Brahma praises the man who is pure and full of light, virtue and wisdom, as
pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
The fact of the matter seems to be that though the text is preserved, those
who claim it adhere to it would deny its contents, instead asserting,
"Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god". This is not unique to
Buddhism, but seems in common w/ the Christians, many of whom choose to
ignore Blessed Isa's statement that God is One, preferring instead, god is
three.
May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path,
- Pat
Bruce
Me: "Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which is the
institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on that
count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since the
Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god."
Carol: > "I think we need to be cautious here. There are no original
writings of the Buddha. The earliest known Buddhist writings are 1900
years old, which makes them 700 years after the life of the Buddha.
Who knows what sorts of changes were wrought in those 700 years? I
would feel more comfortable stating what the Buddha taught if I could
read His original teachings. Otherwise, I would tend to believe tht what
is Buddhism now is transformed by time and tradition." <
Let me repeat at length what I have said here already:
====
It is not an issue of what the Buddha actually said, and it certainly is not
an issue of what the Buddha wrote, since writing was not used to
preserve religious texts during the time of the Buddha. The texts are oral
compositions, composed in a highly sophisticated oral culture. The issue
becomes of what the Buddha taught.
Cultural historical scholarship has shown that the Pali texts do a
fine job of reflecting the history and culture of northern India at the time
of the Buddha, and I do not think it unreasonable to assume the Pali
texts also do a fine job of reflecting the teaching of the Buddha. For
a couple hundred years it was an oral tradition. India of the Buddha's
time was very much a culture of highly refined oral traditions, and it
would be more than somewhat foolish to think that the Buddha in his 45
years of teaching was not concerned with the preservation of his
message. In light of this the first thing we can look at is the founding of
the monastic order: "The first function of the Sangha was to preserve the
Doctrine and thus preserve Buddhism as such [Gombrich: THE WORLD
OF BUDDHISM]."
We find the Buddha and Sariputta in the Digha 23 commenting on the
turmoil in ranks of the Jains after Mahavira died because their teaching
were "not well proclaimed" by him, but the Buddha states that in
contrast he had "well proclaimed" his doctrine, then Sariputta goes
through a long summary of the doctrines taught by the Buddha, a
summary that is obviously structured for oral transmission.
There are any number of other things within the texts that point to the
fact that the Buddha's teaching was a well organized, "well proclaimed,"
affair, deliberately structured and composed for oral transmission. As
Gombrich states: "I have the greatest difficulty in accepting
that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts] is not the work of one genius."
Now, taking the Pali Texts we see a body of literature that has been
preserved in what was obviously a spoken _prakrit_, a Sanskrit relative.
Pali was obviously a _sadhubhashya_, a lingua franca, used by
wandering ascetics in a particular territory. There is good evidence that
supports that this was a dialect used in the Magadha area. If Pali was
not what the Buddha spoke (and likely was not), he certainly would have
no trouble in understanding it. Of the extant prakrits Pali is the closest
to Sanskrit, having many feature in common with Vedic Sanskrit.
An equivalent body of texts exists in Chinese translation. The Chinese
texts belonged to a different school that was located in a different part
of India using a different _prakrit_ than Pali. This particular body of
texts then was Sanskritized before it was translated into Chinese.
The Pali Canon, as it was recited, redacted, and finally approved by the
Third Council in Patiliputta in the 3rd century, was sent with King
Ashoka's son, Mahinda, to Sri Lanka around 250 BCE. Now both the
traditions of the Pali Texts and the Chinese equivalent were separated by
much distance, and importantly not interacting, and it is obvious that
both these bodies of texts under went a lot of handling before they found
their final forms. The Pali Canon was committed to writing in the first
century BCE, less than 300 years after the Buddha's death, and the
Chinese 5 cent CE. But when they are compared the correspondences
are nothing short of remarkable, being often identical in the phrasing
and wording in the doctrinal issues, and there are no doctrinal
discrepancies. (See Kalupahana's BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY: An
Historical Analysis, which neatly illustrates this point.) Doctrinal
discrepancies are found in the secondary and later literature. The point
is that the monastics who preserved the word of the Buddha took quite
seriously the charge given them by the Buddha.
A nice easily accessible example of how well the Buddha's teachings
have been preserved can be found in Thich Nhat Hanh's book,
THUNDERING SILENCE. It is a dialogue of the Buddha that is
found both in the Pali Canon of the Theravadin school and in the
Chinese Buddhist canon. Hanh gives the variations between to two texts
in his translation. Considering the Chinese text had been translated
through at least four languages and the Pali, two, and that the Pali
tradition and the tradition that gave rise to the Chinese translation were
separated very early, not interacting, the fact that the differences are
minimal and not significant to the meaning of the text points to a very
careful concern with preserving the Buddha's teachings.
I can also point to the Ven. Lobsang Gyatso's THE FOUR NOBLE
TRUTHS. This an exposition of basic Buddhist doctrine by a Tibetan.
It is consistent with what one finds within the Theravadin tradition, and
could have been for the most part written by a Theravadin, even though
these two traditions have been totally separated by over 2,000 years.
Other canons obviously existed, their being translated into different Indic
dialects from differing parts of India. Outside of the Pali Canon and the
Chinese Canon, there are large number of early texts preserved in
Tibetan and there are some still extant in Sanskrit and other prakrits.
With the Islamic destruction of the great monastic universities, it is
highly likely other versions of the early Canon were lost. So, could
there have been a god teaching, for example, in these lost canons?
Hardly likely. If there had been it would have been at extreme variance
with what other schools of Buddhism held to be so. To claim that a god
notion in Buddhism somehow got lost is absurd, given subtly and
sophistication of what these texts have preserved, and this is an
important point to note. These texts do preserve very sophisticated and
subtle arguments.
If there had been such a god notion it would not have gone unnoticed.
In the very important Pali/Theravadin work, The Points of Controversy
(circa 250 BCE), sectarian differences among the various schools are
carefully gone through. Theism is not an issue, because no school of
Buddhism in India held a theistic belief, a point that the
Brahmins/Hindus would repeatedly point out throughout Buddhism's
tenure in India. Also, what is of interest, is that though the various
schools may have had their canons preserved in a different prakrit, the
content of these different canons was not at issue in The Points of
Controversy, certainly not the discourses attributed to the Buddha,
because they were not at variance with each other. A remarkable thing
to think about considering the fact that this was initially done by oral
transmission.
The post canonical Questions of King Milinda (around 130 BCE) is a
text highly regarded by the Theravadins, but it originated in a part of
India that was not Theravadin. The teachings, the textual references and
allusions were all consistent with the Pali. The Vimuttimagga, a
compendium of doctrine and practice, is a text that now only exists in
Chinese, but every one of its textual references or allusions can also be
found in the Pali. The Abhidharmakosa, a detailed compendium of
doctrine of a particular set of schools (not the Theravada), has large
number of textual references and quotes which can be found in both in
Pali texts and the Chinese Canon.
The point is that these early texts and teachings were very carefully
preserved, and there is no reason to assume that they were only very
carefully preserved sometime after the time of the Buddha. What we
have with the Pali texts are obvious and deliberate compositions, not the
spontaneous "recordings" of the Buddha's words. The evidence points
to a careful preservation goes back to the Buddha himself.
In the Mahayana texts, which are clearly later compositions, we can find
passages that are identical in content and in phrasing to those found in
the Pali, even though the composers of the Mahayana texts were not
using the Pali Canon as their source. Again, the point is that the monks
and nun took very seriously their job of preserving the word of the
Buddha.
To simply say that the words and the teachings that the Buddha spoke
are lost to us, or that we cannot feel assured that we can know what the
Buddha taught, is to not understand how carefully these texts have been
preserved.
====
Me: "Since Buddhists, like Catholics (of whom AB made the same silly
claim), do not worship statues, AB in this hyperbolic statement is quite
wrong. And the Buddha's doctrines certainly have not disappeared,
making him wrong again."
Coral: > "Would you agree that they might have been transformed by
oral reporting and tradition, or do you think that people managed to
keep the doctrine pure while transmitting it this way? If so, you know,
we could discuss this and still never come to a conclusion." <
Transformed? In what way? Pure? Again, we have the
Baha'i preoccupation with corruption. My point is that these texts show
a very careful preservation and can very reasonably be argued to
accurately reflect what the Buddha taught.
Pristine/pure versus corrupt. This seems to be a Baha'i preoccupation.
I think we do not need to burden ourselves with such notions, which
leads more often than not to triumphalism, and stops us short of seeing
the depth, beauty and richness of Buddhism. My contention is, and with
good argument as quoted above, that we can feel confident that
Buddhism has done a good job of preserving the teachings of the Buddha
(particularly in terms of the Pali texts and their equivalents) and keeping
the spirit of the Buddha's insight alive and vital. In the book by the
Tibetan teacher on the Four Noble Truths mentioned above, there was
nothing in what he said that could not have come from the Theravadin
tradition, even though these two traditions were separated by 2,000+
years.
Again, burdening ourselves with notions as what is pristine or not, we
are stopped from seeing the depth and richness spirit of the
Buddha's insight, which has allowed for a reframing of his insight in
response to various cultural and intellectual conditions.
Carol: > 'Well, if through time the Teachings of the Buddha have been
transformed, then maybe they are not "pure" any more, but are more the
product of what people thought was meant than what was originally
taught. Now, if that is the case, then the spirit of Buddha's Teachings
may have been transformed.' <
Baha'is are so intent upon depriving other religions the spirit of their
founders. When pushed Baha'is are left saying, only Baha'i has the true
spirit of the Buddha, and that the poor Buddhists have no idea what the
Buddha is about, but Adbu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, both of whom
who show no real understanding or knowledge of Buddhism, can tell us
that the Buddha taught a oneness of god, but what teaching of the
Buddha can they point to, or Shoghi Effendi's claim Baha'u'llah is
Maitreya, ignoring what the Maitreya prophrcies say. While the insight
of the Buddha may have reframed in various ways as Buddhism moved
through different cultures and needs, there is a profound underlying
unity of spirit among the vastly different schools of Buddhism that can
be demonstrated in a way that the Baha'i claim of unity of religions/the
one religion of god cannot.
Bruce
Pat Kohli
Bruce wrote:
> Carol Ann,
>
> Me: "Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which is the
> institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on that
> count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since the
> Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god."
> (snip)
> Let me repeat at length what I have said here already:
>
> ====
>
> (validity of Pali and Chines cannon, and similarities of some sections w/
> Mahayana texts, snipped)
>
> ====
>
(more snippage)
>
> Baha'is are so intent upon depriving other religions the spirit of their
> founders.
(more snippage)
Honestly, Bruce, I've lost count of the number of times on USENET I've read you
write "Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god" or similar statements. When
someone who is a former monk tells non-Buddhists something about Buddhism, there
is a tendency to give them some credence.
The Pali cannon, which you _repeatedly_ affirm finds the Buddha saying that
Brahma, the Creator, praises the man who is pure and full of light, virtue and
wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
When you repeatedly write "Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god" do you do
this in ignorance of the Pali cannon? Do you do this because you believe you
know better than Buddha Gotama? Do you do this to try to prove that certain
non-infallible people were actually correct when they said that Buddhism has
deviated from the teachings of Buddha? Do you do it just because you have a
personal problem w/ me and you resent me trying to correct you on this point?
What gives?
My observation of the iconoclastic missionary, be they Christain, Muslim, or
other, is that they invariably deny what they pretend to espouse. The
iconclastic missionary posing as a Christian invariably denies some Bible verses
as snippets. The iconclastic missionary posing as a Muslim invariably denies
some Qor'an verses as anti-muslim polemics.
Though you go to great lengths to support the authenticity of the Pali cannon,
what it says is quite opposite of what you say the Buddha taught.
- Pat
Follow the Path of Righteousness across the River and on to Nirvana.
Bruce
Pat Kohli
Bruce wrote:
That it is not sophistry is simply your opinion. The reader can read for
themself the explanation for how you determine that the Buddha was actually
rejected the notion of Brahma. The reader can can for themself the Dhammapada,
verse 230, in the section titled "Forsake Anger"
>
> Kohli: > "Monotheism is introduced as a strawman, found incompatible
> w/Buddhism, and then factual error is concluded - that Blessed Buddha
> rejected the Creator." <
>
> No straw man needs to be introduced. All we need to do is look at what
> the Buddha/Buddhism had to say on the subject. The assertion of an
> omniscient, permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos is
> rejected throughout the length and breadth of the Indian Buddhist
> tradition.
That is just what I said, you say that Buddha rejected the Creator; we read
Buddha affirmed the Creator, you explain that it is really the "omniscient,
permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos" which is rejected. I am
left to wonder how it is that Buddha is affirming the Creator - Brahma, while
you claim that He is really rejecting Brahma.
When I look at the Dhammapada I read mention of Brahma, w/ no rejection.
> Kohli, who does not seem to get this issue quite right: > "The fact of
> the matter is that Blessed Buddha certainly does not reject the Creator -
> Brahma." <
>
> Yes and no. The Buddha acknowledged Brahma as being a morally
> developed individual, but denies Brahma as being: "the Great God, the
> Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator,
> the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All
> That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is
> permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for
> ever and ever."
To me the problem seems to be that you try to redefine Brahma as this that and
the other thing (the sophistry). Just about every Indian knows that Brahma is
simply the Creator, which you assert that Buddha is rejecting.
> Brahma is seen by the Buddha as being subjected to karma, birth and
> death just like the rest of us, and -- to restate -- the Buddha rejects the
> idea creator god.
>
> Kohli, who asserts but does not support his assertion: > "The fact of
> the matter seems to be that though the text is preserved, those who claim
> it adhere to it would deny its contents, instead asserting, "Buddha
> rejected the idea of a creator god".' <
>
> Kohli needs to show us a text that states Brahma is _the_ creator god,
> but has not done so.
Bruce, surely you read this before:
"He whom the intelligent praise
After careful examination,
He who is of flawless life, wise,
And endowed with knowledge and virtue
Who would dare to blame him
Who is like refined gold?
Even the gods praise him,
By Brahma too he is admired."
http://www.edepot.com/dhamma4.html scroll down to '17. Anger'.
Note to those unfamiliar with the Pali cannon - "the Dhammapada" is one of the
most widely translated selections from this body of Sacred Texts.
That Brahma, who Buddha referred to, is the Creator, can be confirmed by a
review of Hindusim:
"Brahma is the god first represented in the Hindu Triad (see Trimurti). He is
the creator of the universe and all living beings are said to have evolved from
him".
http://www.acornis.com/india/imystica/brahma.html
"Brahma is the creator god and his main function is just that."
http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/sg/hinduism/1hin.html
> > "May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path" <
>
> Primal cause is certainly not something the Buddha taught, nor is it
> compatible with the underlying philosophical structure of his teaching.
To each their own,
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Bruce wrote:
> Pat Kohli complains: > 'Honestly, Bruce, I've lost count of the number
> of times on USENET I've read you write "Buddha rejected the idea of
> a creator god" or similar statements. When someone who is a former
> monk tells non-Buddhists something about Buddhism, there is a tendency
> to give them some credence.' <
>
> Baha'is have a tendency not to give credence to characterizations of
> other religions -- even when given by highly knowledgeable individuals -
> - when the characterization differs from what Baha'is think must so
> about the religion, and never mind that the Baha'i might be essentially
> ignorant of
> the other religion. Time and time again I have experienced this. It is the
> rare Baha'i who is willing to listen and learn from individuals who
> belong to other religions. So, if I repeat myself, it is hopes that those
> who are not locked into a fundamentalist mind set might actually learn
> something and expand their understanding.
>
> Kohli: > "The Pali cannon, which you _repeatedly_ affirm finds the
> Buddha saying that Brahma, the Creator, praises the man who is pure
> and full of light, virtue and wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu
> river." <
>
> But we also find in the Pali canon (one "n") that the Buddha rejected the
> creatorhood of Brahma. You need to do more than read the
> Dhammapada. So, the Buddha accepts Brahma, turning him into a good
> Buddhist, but we also see that the Buddha characterizes Brahma as being
> subject to karma, birth and death.
Does the usual "good Buddhist" descend from the heavens, and ask the
Enlightened One to teach the Dharma, lest teh world perish, as Brahma does?
> Kohli: > 'When you repeatedly write "Buddha rejected the idea of a
> creator god" do you do this in ignorance of the Pali cannon? Do you do
> this because you believe you know better than Buddha Gotama? Do you
> do this to try to prove that certain non-infallible people were actually
> correct when they said that Buddhism has deviated from the teachings
> of Buddha? Do you do it just because you have a personal problem w/
> me and you resent me trying to correct you on this point? What
> gives?'<
>
> The ignorance of the Pali canon is coming from your end, not mine. I
> have read a good part of it in Pali, and most of it in translation. I say
> what I say because it is an accurate presentation of the Buddha's
> teachings.
>
> You try to correct me, but you are simply unwilling to listen to anything
> I have say, and in typical Baha'i fashion reject what I say because it
> does not meet your the needs your religion tries to force upon the Buddha's
> teaching.
It is my observation that your teaching can be hard to reconcile w/ the
Buddha's teaching.
> Kohli: > "Though you go to great lengths to support the authenticity of
> the Pali cannon, what it says is quite opposite of what you say the
> Buddha taught." <
>
> So you say, but you have not shown that this is so other than quote a
> passage from the Dhammapada, ignoring the broader context of the
> lengthy discussions of Brahma elsewhere in the canon. Even the
> passage from the Dhammapada by itself does not support your
> contention.
"Thus," replied the Buddha, "the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads
to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma
and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."
Though Buddha refers to the Creator, you say He rejects the Creator. It is
hard for me to reconcile these statements.
Blessings
- Pat
Carol Ann
>
> So Baha'u'llah was incorrect in the Kitab-i-Iqan when he stated that
> it was contrary to God's justice to believe that a Holy Book was
> corrupted depriving a people of guidance after the death of the
> Messenger?
>
No, this conclusion is not what I expected someone to come to. The
conclusion I thought someone might come to was that there is not text
extant of the Holy Book of Buddha, and that it is quite possible that
people have incorrectly transmitted parts of it through oral tradition.
Furthermore, the Holy Book is always the Message of the Messenger, and
never really changes. Hence, all Teachings from God's Messengers are
"Islam", all Messengers are "One". Whatever people do to the Message
later is not corruption of the Book, but is is unwillingness to heed the
Book.
> Rachel
>
--
Carol Ann
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Carol Ann
Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> Namaste!
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > Carol Ann,
> >
> > Me: "Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which is
the
> > institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on that
> > count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since
the
> > Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god."
>
> > Let me repeat at length what I have said here already:
> >
> > ====
> >
sections w/
> > Mahayana texts, snipped)
> >
> > ====
> >
>
> (more snippage)
>
> >
their
> > founders.
>
>
> Honestly, Bruce, I've lost count of the number of times on USENET I've
read you
statements. When
> someone who is a former monk tells non-Buddhists something about
Buddhism, there
> is a tendency to give them some credence.
>
that
> Brahma, the Creator, praises the man who is pure and full of light,
virtue and
> wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
>
do you do
> this in ignorance of the Pali cannon? Do you do this because you
believe you
> know better than Buddha Gotama? Do you do this to try to prove that
certain
> non-infallible people were actually correct when they said that
Buddhism has
> deviated from the teachings of Buddha? Do you do it just because you
have a
> personal problem w/ me and you resent me trying to correct you on this
point?
> What gives?
>
Muslim, or
> other, is that they invariably deny what they pretend to espouse. The
> iconclastic missionary posing as a Christian invariably denies some
Bible verses
> as snippets. The iconclastic missionary posing as a Muslim invariably
denies
> some Qor'an verses as anti-muslim polemics.
>
cannon,
> what it says is quite opposite of what you say the Buddha taught.
>
> Follow the Path of Righteousness across the River and on to Nirvana.
>
>
I guess this argumentation just proves my point to some extent. No one
can agree on the Teachings of the Buddha, and there are many
interpretations. We may have a fairly good oral tradition, but that
still isn't the same as knowing exactly what was said by the Buddha.
I appreciate the time both Bruce and Pat have taken to clarify their
points of view. I have read several books on Buddhism, and they tend to
disagree too.
Best regards,
chino...@my-deja.com
Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> Bruce, surely you read this before:
> "He whom the intelligent praise
> After careful examination,
> He who is of flawless life, wise,
> And endowed with knowledge and virtue
> Who would dare to blame him
> Who is like refined gold?
> Even the gods praise him,
> By Brahma too he is admired."
> http://www.edepot.com/dhamma4.html scroll down to '17. Anger'.
that is nice, but says nothing about brahma being creator or supreme
high honcho or anything of the sort.
all you folks espousing a baha'i-style forcing of the buddhist circle
into a square hole are forgetting (or else simply ignoring) the sutra
passage (another buddhist want to help me on the citation? i can not
recall, but know it is in there) wherein the buddha has a laugh at
brahma's expense, as it were, noting that brahma is such a very old
being, older than other beings, that when worlds and beings began to
arise, he mistakenly assumed *he* had brought them into being.
hardly "affirming" brahma as creator, eh what?
> Note to those unfamiliar with the Pali cannon - "the Dhammapada" is
one of the
> most widely translated selections from this body of Sacred Texts.
>
> That Brahma, who Buddha referred to, is the Creator, can be confirmed
by a
> review of Hindusim:
>
> "Brahma is the god first represented in the Hindu Triad (see
Trimurti). He is
> the creator of the universe and all living beings are said to have
evolved from
> him".
> http://www.acornis.com/india/imystica/brahma.html
>
> "Brahma is the creator god and his main function is just that."
> http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/sg/hinduism/1hin.html
all of these sources as to the hindu understanding of brahma are,
again, all quite lovely, yet it is a major logical fallacy to assume
that they speak one whit to the question of the *buddhist*
understanding of brahma.
for example, the mainstream christian understanding of jesus of
nazareth is that he is the Son of God, the Saviour of humanity. to say
so, says absolutely nothing about the muslim understanding of him,
which most certainly denies him both divinity and his mission as
messiah/saviour. yet he is an important figure in muslim theology, as
a major prophet, though of course not the Seal of the Prophets (and i
ain't thinkin' of baha'ullah here...) to muslims.
similarly, buddhism accords a minor cosmological place to brahma, but
the buddhist understanding of him is *radically* different from the
hindu one. not only is brahma not the Creator (re the buddha's
*precise* position on whether or not there is a Creator, see below),
but the buddha was also quite clear that brahma was, in the final
analysis, just another sentient being, and was subject to aging and
ultimately death.
just as the christian view of jesus does not correctly portray for us
the muslim view of jesus, so too, the hindu view of brahma does not
correctly portray for us the buddhist view of brahma.
> > > "May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path" <
> >
> > Primal cause is certainly not something the Buddha taught, nor is it
> > compatible with the underlying philosophical structure of his
teaching.
actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
edification", a set of metaphysical questions he expressly refused to
answer for his students and which he regarded as so thoroughly
imponderable and unanswerable (at least for us ordinary humans) that it
would drive us quite literally insane to ponder them overmuch, and also
as being utterly irrelevant to the methods of self-liberation which he
propounded.
a sterling example of these questions in fact actually tending not
towards edification, and of metaphysical argumentation and
overspeculation leading to insanity, and to hostility amongst fellow
beings, might be this very thread.
ya gots ta love that old buddha guy, he rilly rilly knews his stuff,
huh?!
cheers,
chino
rlit...@my-deja.com
I have learned a great deal in this thread, most especially through
that wonderful, lengthy post from Bruce, which really ought to be
preserved.
Still.....
In all of this I have not really seen anything which leads one to
understand the WHY of Buddhism. What is the goal of the Teachings of
this Faith? How does it compare to the future of humanity which
Baha'u'llah spelled out?
It is my belief that we would find a great many similarities between
them. Could not "enlightenment" be construed to be a close parallel to
the Baha'i model of "service to mankind"?
I do believe that the result of the Teachings of these Faiths is quite
similar, a human being who lives in harmony with the world and with his
fellow human beings. I believe that the scant Baha'i references to
Buddhism refer to the diminishing ability over time of a Faith to
transform human society. Look at what Buddhism accomplished in the
first centuries and compare it to what it is accomplishing today.
Different? I think so.
Look at what the Baha'i Faith is accomplishing today.
Robert A. Little
In article <7sg8fr$a3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Carol Ann <ca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <37EAE450...@ameritel.net>,
> Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> > Namaste!
> >
> > Bruce wrote:
> >
> > > Carol Ann,
> > >
> > > Me: "Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which is
> the
> > > institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on
that
> > > count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely since
> the
> > > Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god."
> > > (snip)
> >
> > > Let me repeat at length what I have said here already:
> > >
> > > ====
> > >
> > > (validity of Pali and Chines cannon, and similarities of some
> sections w/
> > > Mahayana texts, snipped)
> > >
> > > ====
> > >
> >
> > (more snippage)
> >
> > >
> > > Baha'is are so intent upon depriving other religions the spirit of
> their
> > > founders.
> >
> > (more snippage)
> >
> > Honestly, Bruce, I've lost count of the number of times on USENET
I've
> read you
> > write "Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god" or similar
> statements. When
> > someone who is a former monk tells non-Buddhists something about
> Buddhism, there
> > is a tendency to give them some credence.
> >
> > The Pali cannon, which you _repeatedly_ affirm finds the Buddha
saying
> that
> > Brahma, the Creator, praises the man who is pure and full of light,
> virtue and
> > wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
> >
> > When you repeatedly write "Buddha rejected the idea of a creator
rlit...@my-deja.com
Actually, it has been "enlightening", if not always respectful and
loving.
What I have gleaned from this is that in Buddhism the existence and
reality of a Primal Cause was hidden rather than revealed. The emphasis
in Buddhist Teachings seems to me, based on this thread, to have been
on the "effect" rather than the "Cause", and that the Teachings
regarding that effect are quite similar in most regards to those found
in the Abrahamic Faiths in which the existence and reality of a Creator
plays a significant role. Fascinating.
I suspect others will have come to different conclusions.
Diversity is good.
Robert A. Little
In article <7sgbgb$ces$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37EAF86C...@ameritel.net>,
> Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
>
> > Bruce, surely you read this before:
> > "He whom the intelligent praise
> > After careful examination,
> > He who is of flawless life, wise,
> > And endowed with knowledge and virtue
> > Who would dare to blame him
> > Who is like refined gold?
> > Even the gods praise him,
> > By Brahma too he is admired."
> > http://www.edepot.com/dhamma4.html scroll down to '17. Anger'.
>
> that is nice, but says nothing about brahma being creator or supreme
> high honcho or anything of the sort.
>
> all you folks espousing a baha'i-style forcing of the buddhist circle
> into a square hole are forgetting (or else simply ignoring) the sutra
> passage (another buddhist want to help me on the citation? i can not
> recall, but know it is in there) wherein the buddha has a laugh at
> brahma's expense, as it were, noting that brahma is such a very old
> being, older than other beings, that when worlds and beings began to
> arise, he mistakenly assumed *he* had brought them into being.
>
> hardly "affirming" brahma as creator, eh what?
>
> > Note to those unfamiliar with the Pali cannon - "the Dhammapada" is
> one of the
> > most widely translated selections from this body of Sacred Texts.
> >
> > That Brahma, who Buddha referred to, is the Creator, can be
confirmed
> by a
> > review of Hindusim:
> >
> > "Brahma is the god first represented in the Hindu Triad (see
> Trimurti). He is
> > the creator of the universe and all living beings are said to have
> evolved from
> > him".
> > http://www.acornis.com/india/imystica/brahma.html
> >
> > "Brahma is the creator god and his main function is just that."
> > http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/sg/hinduism/1hin.html
>
> all of these sources as to the hindu understanding of brahma are,
> again, all quite lovely, yet it is a major logical fallacy to assume
> that they speak one whit to the question of the *buddhist*
> understanding of brahma.
>
> for example, the mainstream christian understanding of jesus of
> nazareth is that he is the Son of God, the Saviour of humanity. to
say
> so, says absolutely nothing about the muslim understanding of him,
> which most certainly denies him both divinity and his mission as
> messiah/saviour. yet he is an important figure in muslim theology, as
> a major prophet, though of course not the Seal of the Prophets (and i
> ain't thinkin' of baha'ullah here...) to muslims.
>
> similarly, buddhism accords a minor cosmological place to brahma, but
> the buddhist understanding of him is *radically* different from the
> hindu one. not only is brahma not the Creator (re the buddha's
> *precise* position on whether or not there is a Creator, see below),
> but the buddha was also quite clear that brahma was, in the final
> analysis, just another sentient being, and was subject to aging and
> ultimately death.
>
> just as the christian view of jesus does not correctly portray for us
> the muslim view of jesus, so too, the hindu view of brahma does not
> correctly portray for us the buddhist view of brahma.
>
> > > > "May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path" <
> > >
> > > Primal cause is certainly not something the Buddha taught, nor is
it
> > > compatible with the underlying philosophical structure of his
> teaching.
>
> actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
> was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
> edification", a set of metaphysical questions he expressly refused to
> answer for his students and which he regarded as so thoroughly
> imponderable and unanswerable (at least for us ordinary humans) that
it
> would drive us quite literally insane to ponder them overmuch, and
also
> as being utterly irrelevant to the methods of self-liberation which he
> propounded.
>
> a sterling example of these questions in fact actually tending not
> towards edification, and of metaphysical argumentation and
> overspeculation leading to insanity, and to hostility amongst fellow
> beings, might be this very thread.
>
> ya gots ta love that old buddha guy, he rilly rilly knews his stuff,
> huh?!
>
> cheers,
> chino
>
JulianLZB87
Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EAFE48...@ameritel.net>...
>Namaste!
snip.
Since this has started to be crossposted to talk.religion.buddhism
please do me a favour... start again so I can follow the thread.
Bruce
but we also see that the Buddha characterizes Brahma as being subject
to karma, birth and death."
Pat Kohli: > 'Does the usual "good Buddhist" descend from the
heavens, and ask the Enlightened One to teach the Dharma, lest teh
world perish, as Brahma does?' <
It is a neat way to incorporate Brahma into Buddhism by having him be
subservient to the Buddha, which is nicely illustrated in the following
story about a monk who goes to visit Brahma:
++++++++++++++++++++++
And it was not long, Kevaddha, before the Great Brahma appeared.
The monk drew close and asked: 'Where, friend, do the four great
elements-earth, water, fire, and air-cease, leaving no trace behind?' The
Great Brahma replied: 'I, monk, am Brahma, the great Brahma, the
Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the
Controller, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place,
the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be.'
Again the monk asked Brahma: 'I did not query, friend, whether you are
indeed Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Mighty . . ., but rather as to
where the four elements earth, water, fire, and air, cease, leaving no
trace behind.' Again Brahma answered: 'I am Brahma, the Great
Brahma . . .'.
And a third time the monk addressed Brahma: 'I did not query, friend,
whether you are indeed Brahma, the Great Brahma ... but rather as to
where the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air cease, leaving no
trace behind.' Then the Great Brahma took that monk by the arm and
led him aside, and said: 'These gods of the Brahma world here, monk,
hold that there is nothing I cannot see, nothing I do not know, and
nothing that is not manifest to me. Therefore I did not answer you
in their presence. I do not know, monk, where the four elements of
earth, water, fire, and air cease without leaving a trace. You have acted
wrong, you have done ill by ignoring the Exalted One and going
elsewhere to find an answer to your question. Go now to the Exalted
One, ask him your question, and accept his answer.'
Digha Nikaya 11
+++++++
This story the Buddha tells certainly does not hold that Brahma is the
omniscient creator of all. If Brahma were that, he would be able to
answer the monks question, and here we have Brahma being subservient
to the Buddha.
Me: "You try to correct me, but you are simply unwilling to listen to
anything I have say, and in typical Baha'i fashion reject what I say
because it does not meet your the needs your religion tries to force upon
the Buddha's teaching."
Kohli: > "It is my observation that your teaching can be hard to
reconcile w/ the Buddha's teaching." <
For the obvious reason: you don't know the Buddha's teaching, and you
are unwilling to learn from those that do.
Kohli, quoting the Buddha: > '"Thus," replied the Buddha, "the
Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma.
He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma
and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."' <
But let us not forget that the Buddha referred to union with Brahma as
a goal that was _hina_, a word that carries a very strong negative flavor,
meaning inferior, lesser. See MN 97. The Buddha took the Brahmanical
goal of union with Brahma and gave it a strong ethical reinterpretation,
and for those Brahmins who were unwilling or unable, for whatever
reason, to learn the straight path to nirvana, he taught his version of
union with Brahma. But in the over all schemata of the Buddha's
teaching union with Brahma was very much a lesser goal, which is
certainly understandable, since Brahma was still bound by karma subject
to birth and death, "subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be."
Kohli: > "Though Buddha refers to the Creator, you say He rejects the
Creator. It is hard for me to reconcile these statements." <
It is hard for you to reconcile these statement for the simple reason you
do listen and you are quite unwilling to see beyond how Baha'i tries to
reinterpret the Buddha. To restate: The Buddha refers to Brahma, but
he clearly rejects that Brahma was a creator. As the Buddha clearly
states: "But even the Great Brahma is subject to coming-to-be and
ceasing-to-be." Hardly a condition for an eternal creator god.
Kohli grumps: > 'That it is not sophistry is simply your opinion. The
reader can read for themself the explanation for how you determine that
the Buddha was actually rejected the notion of Brahma. The reader can
can for themself the Dhammapada, verse 230, in the section titled
"Forsake Anger"' <
But you have not shown that it is sophistry. That the Buddha used
Brahma as an exemplar of high moral development does not mean that
the Buddha did not redefine Brahma in terms consistent with his insight,
thereby rejecting the idea Brahma was a eternal, omniscient creator god.
Kohli in a state of bewilderment: > 'That is just what I said, you say
that Buddha rejected the Creator; we read Buddha affirmed the Creator,
you explain that it is really the "omniscient, permanent, independent,
unique cause of the cosmos" which is rejected. I am left to wonder how
it is that Buddha is affirming the Creator - Brahma, while you claim that
He is really rejecting Brahma.' <
The Buddha is rejecting the idea that Brahma is the creator. He keeps
Brahma around as a way of appealing to Brahmins and as a way of
showing his superiority to the Brahmanical position. The Buddha also
uses Brahma as an example of high moral development, which is what
we see in Dhammapada 230, but as we see elsewhere he rejects the idea
that Brahma is a creator.
Kohli complains: > "To me the problem seems to be that you try to
redefine Brahma as this that and the other thing (the sophistry). Just
about every Indian knows that Brahma is simply the Creator, which you
assert that Buddha is rejecting." <
I don't try to redefine Brahma; the Buddha did. That Brahmanical/Hindu
Indians accept Brahma as being the creator certainly does mean that the
Buddha felt the same way. Obviously he did not.
But since Kohli does what to believe me, I can offer the words of the
highly respected Indologist Helmuth Von Glasenapp:
Buddhism: A Non-Theistic Religion. Helmuth Von Glasenapp. Pub by
George Braziller pages 27, 35-6, 39-42:
Among the gods who are in contact with the world, Brahma is the most
important. Brahma has not yet reached the highest state attainable to
beings in Samsara for above his are other worlds; their inhabitants are
in continuous meditation and attain deeper spiritual states. However,
these beings do not actively engage in the affairs of this world, and so
need not be discussed here.
...
The appellations of Brahma in the Digha-Nikaya are the same as those
of Ishvara in the theist schools, i.e. 'Almighty, Creator and Ruler of the
World, Father of all that was and will be'. In the Buddhist view, these
attributes are erroneous, for Brahma is not an eternal being as the
ignorant believe him to be. Nor is he omniscient, for when the monk
Kevaddha asks him where the four elements of earth, water, fire and air
finally cease without leaving a trace, he has to admit-after long
hesitation that he does not know.
Buddhists also deny the brahminical view of liberation being attained by
union with Brahma: Existence in the Brahma world can in no wise be
compared with Nirvana. Much of what in Buddhist texts is said about
Brahma obviously serves the purpose of presenting brahminical views
as inadequate, and to use them as stepping-stones within the Buddhist
system. So Brahma is mostly a humble devotee of the Buddha, and
diligent in proclaiming his teaching.
Brahma is the highest god in the Buddhist teaching, which thus retains
a view which classical Hinduism no longer knows.
...
The old, developed religions of India acknowledge a multitude of
impermanent gods, all of then subject to karma. Buddhism and Jainism,
and the classic systems of Mimamsa and Sankhya, consider all the gods
without exception as karmically conditioned beings. Many orthodox
Hindu and Brahmin sects, however, teach one uncreated, permanent
world ruler (Ishvara) who is above all the impermanent gods. He exists
eternally, and rules the cosmos and all individual beings. His adherents
attempted to prove his existence by philosophical arguments, or by
appeal to Vedic revelation, or to other scriptures considered to be
authoritative. And Buddhist apologetics at all times tried to justify their
different, atheist point of view. I present below the relevant arguments
of Buddhist masters and texts, arranged not in chronological order but
according to their logical development.'
Buddhism is a philosophy of becoming; consequently it cannot
acknowledge the existence of an eternal, permanent and personal god.
If there is nothing that is permanent in the world, if unconditioned
substances do not exist, and if each personality is but a continuously
flowing stream of changing dharmas, then no Ishvara can exist, no
matter whether he is conceived as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or whatever.
Therefore it is said (Abhidharmakosha): 'The assumption that an lshvara
is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in an eternal
self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance or personality). This
belief is untenable as soon as it is recognized that everything is
(impermanent and therefore) subject to suffering."
Buddha says (Anguttara-Nikaya): 'As far as the suns and moons extend
their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a
thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a
thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand
continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of
sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold
world system reaches, the Great Brahma is the highest being. But even
the Great Brahma is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be."
...
Again from the Buddhist point of view, it is difficult for theism to give
a motive for the act of creation. If God created the world for his own
pleasure, then it would seem that he delights in the existential suffering
of his creatures, in their being subject to illness and the pains of hell,
etc. And if God is almighty, then why has he made such a poor job of
the world? And the final problem is: 'If God is the sole cause of all that
happens, then the effort of man is vain.'
In the earliest literature Buddha is said to have stressed the
incompatibility of the theory of a good and almighty god with the
vileness of the world, and with the doctrine of the freedom of the will.
A summary from the Anguttara-Nikaya states: 'Some ascetics and
Brahmins hold: "Whatever comes to man, happiness or suffering, or
neither, all is caused by the will of the creator (issaranimmana)." But I
say: "So then because of the will of their creator and god, human beings
become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous,
malicious and heretical." And those who rely on the creation of a
supreme god lack the freewill to do what is to be done, and to refrain
from doing what is not to be done."'
The Bhuridatta-jataka poses the question why God does not make all
men happy, and why he does not bring order into the world (ujj-karoti).
'The lord of creation is unjust because though justice exists, he created
injustice as well'.
Though Brahminical teaching is based on the Vedas and other canonical
texts, it is of no value for the words of the Brahmins are mere lying
chatter (asatpra-lapa). The Milinda-Panha calls them empty and without
a real core. In the Vajrasuci -- supposed to be by Ashvaghosha -- the
Brahminical scriptures are ridiculed."
According to the Majjhima-Nikaya Buddha said: 'The Brahmins have
handed on the old traditions down the generations, just as a basket is
handed on; and they say: "This is true, and all else is false." But is there
but one among them, even back to their old masters, who can say: "This
I know myself?" They are all like a lot of blind men, walking one
behind the other, and none of them sees in front, at the back, or in the
middle'. The Buddha contrasts Brahminical wisdom based on revelation
with an insight which, according to him, can be won by everyone who
has developed the necessary prerequisites.
Buddhism, however, is not satisfied in merely contradicting
theist doctrines, but also developed a theory as to how the
erroneous belief in a creator-god (Brahma) came about. The
oldest version of this theory is already contained in the DighaNikaya. I
give this text with some interspersed comments. It starts with a
description of the cyclic periods of world creation and destruction:
After a long period of time, the world comes to an end. When this
happens, all creatures escape-mainly into (the realm of) shining beings
(abhassara, i.e. gods of a higher realm that is not destroyed at the end
of the world). There they live, having bodies composed of 'manas'; their
nourishment is joy, they shine by their inherent splendour, fly in the air,
and live in glory, for a very long time.
After a long period, the world then begins anew. When this happens,
first the empty Brahma palace appears. Then a being departs from the
assembly of the 'shining ones' because his allotted life span is over, or
because his own accumulated merits (to which he owes his existence in
the realm of the ,shining ones') are exhausted. He subsequently appears
in the empty Brahma palace of the newly emerging world. There he
lives with a 'manas' body (see above), his nourishment is joy, he shines
by his inherent splendour, flies in the air, and lives in glory for a very
long time.
However, after that being has lived in the Brahma palace for a very long
time he becomes lonely, and there arises in him the restless desire: 'Oh,
if only other beings, too, might come into existence!' Then other beings
begin to depart from the realm of the 'shining ones', because their
appropriate span of life is ended, or because their accumulated merits
are exhausted. They also appear in the Brahma palace, and keep the
firstcomer company. They, too, live there with 'manas' bodies, their
nourishment is joy, they shine by their inherent splendour, fly in the air,
and live for a very long time.
Then the one who came first into the empty Brahma palace thinks: 'I am
Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Almighty, not subject to anybody, from
whose eyes nothing remains hidden, undisputed ruler, the effective one,
the creator, the highest lord who rules everything according to his
pleasure, the father of all that has been and will be. I have created all
these beings here. For in me there arose the thought: 'Oh, if only other
beings, too, would come into existence!' That was the desire of my
heart, and lo! they came -into existence'. And in the beings that
appeared after him the thought arises: 'This is the venerable Brahma, the
Great Brahma, the Almighty.... He, the venerable Brahma, created us
all. For we found him here, and ourselves appeared after him.'
This is a very interesting statement, for it assumes that even the first
dwellers on earth already had a monotheistic religion of some primitive
form. However, it traces this monotheism back not to an original
revelation, but to an error of assumption by both God and men.
Studying the above arguments against a personal creator and ruler, we
find that the authoritative Indian texts of Buddhism show a clear and
well argued, negative attitude towards the idea of God. And so
Buddhism with its strict denial of a divine creator and world ruler must
be said to be atheist.
There remains, however, the question whether Buddhism was atheist
from its beginning, or whether its founder, the historical Gautama, had
another point of view. Some scholars attempted to clear Buddha of the
accusation of atheism by suggesting that he never intentionally touched
on the problem of God, that his purpose was only to teach the path of
self liberation, and that he therefore repudiated all metaphysical
speculations. Other scholars are of the opinion that Nirvana or' the
eternal, cosmic law replaces God in Buddhist teaching. And others again
suggest that Buddha did recognize a world ruler; or again, that from the
very beginning his adherents saw in him a liberated, eternal being. All
these widely differing attempts to prove the theism of Buddha are so
many speculations, and cannot be supported from the texts. They also
lack historical foundation: if such a great difference is assumed between
the teaching of the founder and that of the older texts of his religion,
then detailed evidence has to be produced to show how this
revolutionary change took place. ... Yet, if one allows any authority to
the transmitted canonical scriptures, one will also have to admit that in
all probability Buddha's view did not vary greatly from that which is
presented by all the later literature on the problem of God.
Bruce
Curious as to why you are cross posting this to "talk.religion.buddhism,"
but go for it. It gives me a good opportunity to expose others to just how
very wrong headed Baha'i is in its attemtp to usurp the Buddha.
Bruce
the Covenant."
I am not on "talk.religion.buddhism" so if there are replies, please cross
post to "alt.religion.bahai."
JulianLZB87 wrote in message ...
chino...@my-deja.com
rlit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Friends
>
> Actually, it has been "enlightening", if not always respectful and
> loving.
>
> What I have gleaned from this is that in Buddhism the existence and
> reality of a Primal Cause was hidden rather than revealed. The
emphasis
> in Buddhist Teachings seems to me, based on this thread, to have been
> on the "effect" rather than the "Cause", and that the Teachings
> regarding that effect are quite similar in most regards to those found
> in the Abrahamic Faiths in which the existence and reality of a
Creator
> plays a significant role. Fascinating.
>
> I suspect others will have come to different conclusions.
>
> Diversity is good.
sure, except when it tries to make buddhism do contortions in order for
somebody to be able to incorrectly assert something about buddhism (or
any other religion) based solely upon superficial knowledge, or even
fundamental misunderstanding, thereof.
contrary to your gleaning, buddhism does not somehow "emphasise effects
over causes". it simply denies the possibility - and the usefulness -
of knowing whether or not there was a FIRST cause. in his famous
metaphor, the buddha likened such questions to the person who, upon
being shot through with a poison arrow, demands to know who made the
arrow, who cooked up the poison, who shot the angle and from where, and
so on. such curiosity does nothing at all to remove the arrow, and the
detour down such avenues of inquiry in fact prevents one from pulling
out the arrow and getting the poison antidoted in time to help.
but the buddha never said, just focus on your wound and not on the fact
that it is caused by an arrow, and never said, in future, learn from
this that perhaps you should stop hanging out near archery ranges, and
maybe even you should take up wearing an arrow-proof vest whilst out
and about.
in other words, buddhism is very *much* about causes, every bit as much
as effect - for indeed, they arise simulataneously, we are taught, even
if one ripens later than the other. the *only* way to 100% prevent the
seed from ripening, is to make sure it never gets planted - which means
understanding the *relationship* of cause and effect.
and for a buddhist, cause and effect - together - is all there is in
the way of being able to "save" oneself, for no external actor, no deus
quite literally ex machina, is standing offstage intervening in our
affairs.
cheers,
chino
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <7sgbgb$ces$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <37EAF86C...@ameritel.net>,
> > Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce, surely you read this before:
> > > "He whom the intelligent praise
> > > After careful examination,
> > > He who is of flawless life, wise,
> > > And endowed with knowledge and virtue
> > > Who would dare to blame him
> > > Who is like refined gold?
> > > Even the gods praise him,
> > > By Brahma too he is admired."
> > > http://www.edepot.com/dhamma4.html scroll down to '17. Anger'.
> >
> > that is nice, but says nothing about brahma being creator or supreme
> > high honcho or anything of the sort.
> >
> > all you folks espousing a baha'i-style forcing of the buddhist
circle
> > into a square hole are forgetting (or else simply ignoring) the
sutra
> > passage (another buddhist want to help me on the citation? i can
not
> > recall, but know it is in there) wherein the buddha has a laugh at
> > brahma's expense, as it were, noting that brahma is such a very old
> > being, older than other beings, that when worlds and beings began to
> > arise, he mistakenly assumed *he* had brought them into being.
> >
> > hardly "affirming" brahma as creator, eh what?
> >
> > > Note to those unfamiliar with the Pali cannon - "the Dhammapada"
is
> > one of the
> > > most widely translated selections from this body of Sacred Texts.
> > >
> > > That Brahma, who Buddha referred to, is the Creator, can be
> confirmed
> > by a
> > > review of Hindusim:
> > >
> > > "Brahma is the god first represented in the Hindu Triad (see
> > Trimurti). He is
> > > the creator of the universe and all living beings are said to have
> > evolved from
> > > him".
> > > http://www.acornis.com/india/imystica/brahma.html
> > >
> > > "Brahma is the creator god and his main function is just that."
> > > http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/sg/hinduism/1hin.html
> >
> > > > > "May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path" <
> > > >
> > > > Primal cause is certainly not something the Buddha taught, nor
is
> it
> > > > compatible with the underlying philosophical structure of his
> > teaching.
> >
chino...@my-deja.com
rlit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Friends
>
> I have learned a great deal in this thread, most especially through
> that wonderful, lengthy post from Bruce, which really ought to be
> preserved.
>
> Still.....
>
> In all of this I have not really seen anything which leads one to
> understand the WHY of Buddhism. What is the goal of the Teachings of
> this Faith? How does it compare to the future of humanity which
> Baha'u'llah spelled out?
>
> It is my belief that we would find a great many similarities between
> them. Could not "enlightenment" be construed to be a close parallel to
> the Baha'i model of "service to mankind"?
>
> I do believe that the result of the Teachings of these Faiths is quite
> similar, a human being who lives in harmony with the world and with
his
> fellow human beings. I believe that the scant Baha'i references to
> Buddhism refer to the diminishing ability over time of a Faith to
> transform human society. Look at what Buddhism accomplished in the
> first centuries and compare it to what it is accomplishing today.
> Different? I think so.
>
> Look at what the Baha'i Faith is accomplishing today.
wow..... baha'i triumphalism and fundamentalism, eh?
you have clearly never heard of the dalai lama, thich nhat hanh,
bernard tetsugen glassman, or any number of other important modern
buddhist teachers, each of whom is accomplishing far more today than, i
suspect, you have any idea.
cheers,
chino
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <7sg8fr$a3l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Carol Ann <ca...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <37EAE450...@ameritel.net>,
> > Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> > > Namaste!
> > >
> > > Bruce wrote:
> > >
> > > > Carol Ann,
> > > >
> > > > Me: "Buddhist institution destroyed? The order of monks, which
is
> > the
> > > > institution founded by the Buddha, still exists. He is wrong on
> that
> > > > count. The Buddha established the oneness of god? Not likely
since
> > the
> > > > Buddha rejected the idea of a creator god."
> > > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > Let me repeat at length what I have said here already:
> > > >
> > > > ====
> > > >
> > > > (validity of Pali and Chines cannon, and similarities of some
> > sections w/
> > > > Mahayana texts, snipped)
> > > >
> > > > ====
> > > >
> > >
> > > (more snippage)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Baha'is are so intent upon depriving other religions the spirit
of
> > their
> > > > founders.
> > >
rlit...@my-deja.com
Regretfully, you have both misunderstood and misquoted me. I did not
say "emphasise effects over causes", and the understanding of that is
quite distinct from my meaning. Perhaps I was unclear.
By "Cause" I meant God. By "effects" I meant the teachings of Buddhism
which lead to enlightenment. I was saying that it appeared from the
statements I have read here that Buddhism focuses on how to live rather
than whether there is a God; that the spiritual and ethical teachings
found in Buddhism seem quite strongly related to those found in the
Book, of which Baha'i is the latest chapter. In another thread I wrote
that the sparse mention of Buddhism found in the Baha'i Writings seems
to me to refer not to the corruption of the actual Teachings (Word),
but rather to the diminuation of effect those Teachings have upon the
world.
Bruce contends that the words of Buddha have been perfectly preserved,
something I find to be problematic, but not at all to the point, which
is that the powerful spiritual impact those Teachings had in the first
few centuries is not evident in the 20th century. THAT is perhaps the
meaning, or one of the meanings 'Abdu'l-Baha' meant to convey.
Individuals continue to discover the truth and beauty of all the
worlds' ancient Faiths, and will do so into the far distant future, but
the Faiths' themselves no longer forge new civilizations and societies,
are in fact powerless in the face of the forces of materialism, of self
and passion which have overwhelmed every land.
A study of history illustrates that societies rise and fall,
civilizations appear, grow, blossom and then wither. Humanity, however,
steadily matures and grows, impelled by a succession of Revelations
which speak to the heart, mind and soul of man with increasingly higher
levels of truth. There is no reason to believe that the future will
differ in this regard, and so why would the present be different than
the past or the future?
There is an enormous spiritual hunger evident in the world today, and
Buddhism is attracting a following, but I do not believe that that
beautiful, ancient Faith has the ability to transform this morally
decadant and spiritually moribund society. I do believe that the Baha'i
Faith does. I am a Baha'i and so I have some knowledge of the power
which this Faith contains within it. I have seen it at work,
regenerating individuals and societies.
You do not believe that the universe is itself an effect. I have no
objection or problem with your belief, but I do not understand why
someone who is dedicated to enlightenment would come here with nothing
but answers.
If you are knowledgeable, you know how to ask questions.
Do you have any questions?
Robert A. Little
In article <7sgpng$nj4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Bruce
>actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
>was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
>edification",
I hear this, even from Buddhists, but this is not so.
Bruce
>I guess this argumentation just proves my point to some extent. No one
>can agree on the Teachings of the Buddha, and there are many
>interpretations. We may have a fairly good oral tradition, but that
>still isn't the same as knowing exactly what was said by the Buddha.
That Kohli disagrees with me does not prove your point at all. There could
be -- and really are -- other explanations for for Kohli: being a Baha'i
fundamentalist he cannot allow that the Buddha was other how Baha'i imagines
him to be; he is ignorant of the Buddha's teachings.
>I appreciate the time both Bruce and Pat have taken to clarify their
>points of view. I have read several books on Buddhism, and they tend to
>disagree too.
Disagree about what? What books. You are doing the typical Baha'i thing,
which being unwilling to listen to others and explore an issue.
JulianLZB87
rlit...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sgdm3$ea7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Dear Friends
>
>I have learned a great deal in this thread, most especially through
>that wonderful, lengthy post from Bruce, which really ought to be
>preserved.
>
>Still.....
>
>In all of this I have not really seen anything which leads one to
>understand the WHY of Buddhism. What is the goal of the Teachings of
>this Faith? How does it compare to the future of humanity which
>Baha'u'llah spelled out?
>
>It is my belief that we would find a great many similarities between
>them. Could not "enlightenment" be construed to be a close parallel to
>the Baha'i model of "service to mankind"?
>
>I do believe that the result of the Teachings of these Faiths is quite
>similar, a human being who lives in harmony with the world and with his
>fellow human beings. I believe that the scant Baha'i references to
>Buddhism refer to the diminishing ability over time of a Faith to
>transform human society. Look at what Buddhism accomplished in the
>first centuries and compare it to what it is accomplishing today.
Please do me a favour by jogging my memory...
What was it, exactly, that Buddhism accomplished
in the first centuries?
Bruce
that wonderful, lengthy post from Bruce, which really ought to be
preserved." <
Thank you for saying. I would say that puts you in a small minority
among Baha'is, for as you have seen here, and as I have seen over the
years, many Baha'is are extremely resistant to being open to any
understanding of Buddhism that puts it at variance with the official
Baha'i understanding. Not only does the msg get attacked, but frequently
so does the messenger. Understanding other religions takes work and a
willingness to put aside preconceptions of how the other religion should
be.
> "In all of this I have not really seen anything which leads one to
understand the WHY of Buddhism. What is the goal of the Teachings
of this Faith? How does it compare to the future of humanity which
Baha'u'llah spelled out?" <
As why the WHY has not been discussed is because it has not been a
topic. I offer the following as an opening to such a discussion.
+++++++++
THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, November 3, 1971 by Donald K.
Swearer.
The idea of God in Christianity has answered
many difficult questions, ranging from causality to
salvation. Yet it is undeniable that this same concept
has given Christian theology in almost every period
of its history a metaphysical cast. Even Soren
Kierkegaard, whom most consider the founder of
Christian existentialism, focused his attention on the
"absolute relationship to the Absolute" - hardly a
phrase denoting an immanental humanism. That
today's theologians are largely revising traditional
"God language" underlines the problem the con-
cept of God puts to modern man.
Hence one of the appeals of Buddhism: its rejec-
tion of the idea of God as an Absolute Being. It is
true that Hindu divinities lurk in the background
of some forms of Buddhism and that in other forms
the Buddha himself is worshiped as deity, but by
and large Buddhism's theological stance differs
radically from the biblical one. Rather than on God
or the God-man relationship, traditional Buddhism
focuses on man, and its aim is "salvation" defined as
men understanding themselves as they really are
and the world as it really is. That is, Buddhism is
humanistic. The notion that the Bible, for example,
is a record of God's search for man is totally foreign
to it. The canon of traditional Buddhism is a record
of man's search for his own highest self-realization.
The biblical tradition's emphasis on the God who
acts in history led to theological preoccupation with
issues of a metaphysical kind - e.g., creation, the
nature of the soul. Buddhism, however, is decided-
antimetaphysical.
...
What I want to emphasize is not that traditional
Buddhism is atheistic and antimetaphysical, but
rather that it affirms transcendence without locating
it in an Absolute. It is humanistic - not in the sense
of those Western existentialists who are atheistic and
see man's plight as absurd and utterly desperate, but
in the sense that it offers man a way to transcend the
"frailties that flesh is heir to" without appealing to
any power beyond man himself. That is, Buddhism
trusts in man's ability not only to come to an
understanding of things as they really are but also to
act in terms of that understanding. We Westerners
are likely to view as naive the idea that man will
make the necessary connection between knowing
and doing. If so, the trouble may be that we have
not properly grasped what the Buddhist means by
knowledge.
While, as I have said, traditional Buddhism is
confident of man's ability to "save himself," it does
not by any means take the human situation to be all
moonlight and roses. Quite the contrary. One of the
paradoxes of Buddhism is its affirmation that the
human situation is a mess but that - given right
intentions, right effort and right understand-
ing - man can overcome it. In other words, Bud-
dhism couples the radical critique of the human
situation with the radical promise that man can
strive against it and so gain full human stature.
Where the biblical tradition focuses on man's will
in its interpretation of the human situation,
Buddhism focuses on man's _mind_. It is because man
is ignorant of the real nature of his situation that he
is unable to act in accordance with his highest ends.
This is a vicious circle. Until man becomes more
enlightened about the true state of things, his
ignorance and his actions continually reinforce each
other for ill. Ignorance is tied into the whole
knowing process. Our knowledge is based primarily
on the information given us by our senses (in
Buddhist psychology the mind is the sixth sense).
Unfortunately, sensory information is exceedingly
deceptive. Not only do the senses inform us that the
radiator is hot or the sky blue, but they do so in such
a way that objects become the paramount focus of
attention, particularly as they are perceived to relate
to us. Consequently, we think in not only in terms of
such distinct entities as tables, chairs, books, money,
but of these as objects set off from ourselves, the
sensing, perceiving and knowing subjects. Hence
arise territorial claims - "my book," "your wife,"
"our country" - which produce hatred, greed and
lust. But if we know the truth, we are set free from
the bondage of ignorance, set free to act out the
truth; i.e., the opposite of hatred, greed and lust.
The Dhammapada, one of the most frequently
quoted texts of traditional Buddhism, begins:
All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is
founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If
a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows
him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the
wagon. . . . If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought,
happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves
him.
The interconnection of thought and action in this
sense illustrates the fundamental ethical import
of knowledge: Ignorance not only breeds the wrong
kind of action; at a deeper level it makes life an
ordeal of suffering. But Westerners who probably
associate "suffering" with traditional Buddhism's
assessment of the world often misconstrue the term.
When a Buddhist says that life is suffering or ill or
full of pain, he is speaking in the light of his
conviction that men act out of ignorance rather than
knowledge. In effect, life is suffering because we are
trying to live on a level of reality which does not
exist. It is like a mirage of water in the parched
desert. We take the water to be really there, but in
fact it is only the product of special atmospheric
conditions. Similarly, the objects which seem real to
the senses are only products of conditions. This
insight Buddhism applies to the notion of a self.
According to traditional Buddhism, the suffering
arising from ignorance centers on the self. Chris-
ianity also locates the human problem there: it
defines sin in terms of willful self-pride an self-
assertion. But whereas Christianity resolves the
problem of suffering by the dynamics of the God-
man relationship, Buddhism resolves it by right
knowledge, which dispels the self-mirage. The self,
like any other object, is the product of conditions.
Careful examination shows that there exists no self
beyond factors composing mind and body. The ego
is an inference from our ignorance of the real nature
of existence, and as such it gives rise to suffering in
all who lead illusory lives. Buddhism's radical
critique of the human situation, then, is couched in;
terms of ignorance-produced suffering.
But, as I have said, traditional Buddhism also
holds out the radical promise that man can tran-
scend his situation by right knowledge. Such knowl-
edge, however, is not that ordinary, discursive
knowledge which is derived, say, from the study of
books; it grows out of full awareness. And this
saving knowledge is not mysticism but empiri-
cism - not an escape from realities but confronting
them.
The real nature of things is relative. It took an
Einstein to formulate a scientific doctrine of relativi-
ty, but all of us perceive the relative nature of our
lives. Every moment we not only grow older but
change in many and complex ways -changes rang-
ing from bodily chemistry to the amount of our take-
home pay. This perception of the relative nature of
the world is at the heart of Buddhist teaching.
The Buddhist affirmation of the relative nature of
the world is much more sophisticated than the
simple assertion that everything we perceive is in
process of change. If everything in the world is
dynamic, then there must be a continual interaction
of material and immaterial elements more subtle
than can be readily observed. That is, all things
- including ourselves - condition and are condi-
tioned by each other. Nothing stands by itself as
absolutely independent. Not only am I interrelated
with my environment, but I myself am a set of
complex interrelationships. If, then, our world is
one of conditioned and conditioning factors in a
constant state of flux, it becomes impossible to set
things aside as static, whether objects, persons or.
systems of thought. Further if all things are relative
not only to their contexts but from moment to
moment, then any attachment to objects is meaningless.
++++++++++
> 'It is my belief that we would find a great many similarities between
them. Could not "enlightenment" be construed to be a close parallel to
the Baha'i model of "service to mankind"?' <
Maybe. It is worth looking at, but one needs to be very careful about
jumping to conclusions about what seems similar.
> "I believe that the scant Baha'i references to Buddhism refer to the
diminishing ability over time of a Faith to transform human society." <
Since this going to a Buddhist newsgroup, thanks to Kohli, it is worth
posting a few of the scant references:
The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child,
and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged
man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything.
(" Abdu'l-Baha in London: Addresses, and Notes of
Conversations" (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1987), pp. 63-
64)
Buddha also established a new religion, and
Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their
institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and
rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued
in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder
of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the
Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His
doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and
ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in
the worship of statues and images. -- Abdu'l-Baha Some Answered
Questions, Page: 165
Shoghi Effendi:
'...He [Baha'u'llah] was... to the Buddhists the fifth
Buddha.... He alone is meant by the prophecy attributed to
Gautama Buddha Himself, that "a Buddha named Maitreye, the
Buddha of universal fellowship" should, in the fullness of time,
arise and reveal "His boundless glory."'
Regarding your questions: As there are no extant
authenticated writings of the Buddha we cannot claim that He
Himself taught reincarnation. (28 September 1941)
The Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but His
followers do not possess His authentic writings. (26 December
1941 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
And because it so neatly outlines the Baha'i approach to other religions,
I should add here the following quote from Shoghi Effendi:
"The Faith standing identified with the name of Baha'u'llah
disclaims any intention to belittle any of the Prophets gone before
Him, to whittle down any of their teachings, to obscure, however
slightly, the radiance of their Revelations, to oust them from the
hearts of their followers, to abrogate the fundamentals of their
doctrines, to discard any of their revealed Books, or to suppress
the legitimate aspirations of their adherents. Repudiating the claim
of any religion to be the final revelation of God to man,
disclaiming finality for His own Revelation, Baha'u'llah inculcates
the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth, the continuity
of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of religious experience.
His aim is to widen the basis of all revealed religions and to
unravel the mysteries of their scriptures. He insists on the
unqualified recognition of the unity of their purpose, restates the
eternal verities they enshrine, coordinates their functions,
distinguishes the essential and the authentic from the non-essential
and spurious in their teachings, separates the God-given truths from
the priest-prompted superstitions, and on this as a basis proclaims
the possibility, and even prophesies the inevitability, of their
unification, and the consummation of their highest hopes."
> "I believe that the scant Baha'i references to Buddhism refer to the
diminishing ability over time of a Faith to transform human society.
Look at what Buddhism accomplished in the first centuries and compare
it to what it is accomplishing today. Different? I think so." <
Well, Buddhism's numbers are far better than Baha'i's in the West.
Baha'i numbers in the US have been at best stagnanting. I go to my
local Border's Books (a very large chain store), there were only two
general introductory books on Baha'i and close to twenty shelves of
books on Buddhism. There were no Baha'i magazines, and there were
three Buddhist magazines with national circulation dealing not only with
issues about Buddhism (quite willing to take careful self critical
examinations of Buddhism) but also dealing with all sorts of pertinent
social issue. Baha'i magazines? Zip, none, not a one, and certainly it
will be a very cold day in hell before a magazine can be freely published
without central Baha'i control that will allow for a critical look at any
issue related to Baha'i. There are two accredited Buddhist universities
(granting at least masters level degrees) in the US. Buddhism has in the
West made contributions in any number of fields from health care to
theology to art. There are very strong and active Buddhist social
movements dealing with the dying, with prisoners, and with social
welfare issues. All in about 100 years time. Baha'i remains all the while
remarkably obscure.
> "Look at what the Baha'i Faith is accomplishing today." <
The Mormons are strongly outpacing Baha'i throughout the world.
Pat Kohli
JulianLZB87 wrote:
> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EAFE48...@ameritel.net>...
> >Namaste!
>
> snip.
>
> Since this has started to be crossposted to talk.religion.buddhism
> please do me a favour... start again so I can follow the thread.
Thanks for your interest. I'm sure tons of ballast could be shifted to
recreate how we got here. In a nutshell, Bruce wrote "Buddha rejected
the idea of a creator god"; I took exception since the Buddha referred
to Brahma in His Teachings. It would seem to me that when he mentions
Brahma, He knows his audience understands Him to refer to the Creator -
a simple matter of context.
Blessed Buddha taught that Brahma praises the man who is pure and full
of light, virtue and wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
If in fact, Buddha were also rejecting Brahma, wouldn't He be deriding
the virtue of purity, virtue and wisdom, by such remarks?
After Realization, did the Buddha reject Brahma, saying 'just go away'
and then get into a constructive conversation with Mara?
I don't think Blessed Buddha rejected Brahma and I don't understand how
someone writes that Buddha rejected the creator god when I can read
otherwise for myself.
Blessings!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
I took exception with the remark that Blessed Buddha rejected a creator god.
chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <37EAF86C...@ameritel.net>,
> Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
>
> > Bruce, surely you read this before:
> > "He whom the intelligent praise
> > After careful examination,
> > He who is of flawless life, wise,
> > And endowed with knowledge and virtue
> > Who would dare to blame him
> > Who is like refined gold?
> > Even the gods praise him,
> > By Brahma too he is admired."
> > http://www.edepot.com/dhamma4.html scroll down to '17. Anger'.
>
> that is nice, but says nothing about brahma being creator or supreme
> high honcho or anything of the sort.
The attribute is simply 'creator', not supreme high honcho, or anything
else. As it happens, Gotama Buddha taught in northern India, @ 2500 years
ago. Though the Upanishads my have been compiled after the Tripitaka, they
reflect gleanings from older beliefs, the Vedas. In the Mundaka Upanishad,
the opening verse is "Brahma arose as the first among gods, as the creator
of all, as the guardian of the world." For the Buddha to refer to Brahma,
He would be understood to refer to the creator god. That is the cultural
context He lived in.
> all you folks espousing a baha'i-style forcing of the buddhist circle
> into a square hole are forgetting (or else simply ignoring) the sutra
> passage (another buddhist want to help me on the citation?
I had hoped to explore what the Buddha did adn did not reject. This is not
necessarily the same as what you or I or someone else accepts or rejects.
If you choose to believe that when Gotama Buddha refers to "Brahma", He
really means "Ananda", that is your bag, not mine.
> i can not
> recall, but know it is in there) wherein the buddha has a laugh at
> brahma's expense, as it were, noting that brahma is such a very old
> being, older than other beings, that when worlds and beings began to
> arise, he mistakenly assumed *he* had brought them into being.
Should I find similar Hindu stories? Yet "Brahma" is understood to refer to
the creator god.
> hardly "affirming" brahma as creator, eh what?
Perhaps it simply illustrates the fundamental fallacy of any person-centric
theology.
> > Note to those unfamiliar with the Pali cannon - "the Dhammapada" is
> one of the
> > most widely translated selections from this body of Sacred Texts.
> >
> > That Brahma, who Buddha referred to, is the Creator, can be confirmed
> by a
> > review of Hindusim:
> >
> > "Brahma is the god first represented in the Hindu Triad (see
> Trimurti). He is
> > the creator of the universe and all living beings are said to have
> evolved from
> > him".
> > http://www.acornis.com/india/imystica/brahma.html
> >
> > "Brahma is the creator god and his main function is just that."
> > http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/sg/hinduism/1hin.html
>
> all of these sources as to the hindu understanding of brahma are,
> again, all quite lovely, yet it is a major logical fallacy to assume
> that they speak one whit to the question of the *buddhist*
> understanding of brahma.
The exception was to the Buddha rejecting a creator god. I could care less
what Buddhists, Jains or Hindus understand of Brahma - that is all
subjective.
> for example, the mainstream christian understanding of jesus of
> nazareth is that he is the Son of God, the Saviour of humanity. to say
> so, says absolutely nothing about the muslim understanding of him,
> which most certainly denies him both divinity and his mission as
> messiah/saviour. yet he is an important figure in muslim theology, as
> a major prophet, though of course not the Seal of the Prophets (and i
> ain't thinkin' of baha'ullah here...) to muslims.
Perhaps this is a useful point to illustrate my concerns. Were some
Christian to claim that they understand God to be Three Persons, I may tell
them that I have a different udnerstanding, but I can hardly take exception
- however disagreeable, they really do hold to Athanasianism. In contrast,
were some Christian to assert that Blessed Jesus taught that God was Three
Persons, I would argue that actually Blessed Jesus taught that God is One,
just as Blessed Moses did, and I would challenge them to provide a verse
from the Gospel reading, "hear O people, God is Three Persons: My Father,
Myself, and the Holy Spirit."
> similarly, buddhism accords a minor cosmological place to brahma, but
> the buddhist understanding of him is *radically* different from the
> hindu one. not only is brahma not the Creator (re the buddha's
> *precise* position on whether or not there is a Creator, see below),
> but the buddha was also quite clear that brahma was, in the final
> analysis, just another sentient being, and was subject to aging and
> ultimately death.
The many gods of old India had origins, and fates, but they had a creator
god, Brahma.
> just as the christian view of jesus does not correctly portray for us
> the muslim view of jesus, so too, the hindu view of brahma does not
> correctly portray for us the buddhist view of brahma.
>
> > > > "May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path" <
> > >
> > > Primal cause is certainly not something the Buddha taught, nor is it
> > > compatible with the underlying philosophical structure of his
> teaching.
>
> actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
> was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
> edification", a set of metaphysical questions he expressly refused to
> answer for his students and which he regarded as so thoroughly
> imponderable and unanswerable (at least for us ordinary humans) that it
> would drive us quite literally insane to ponder them overmuch, and also
> as being utterly irrelevant to the methods of self-liberation which he
> propounded.
So, if the question of a creator is a distraction, would you agree that
Buddha answered that question by rejecting a creator god?
> a sterling example of these questions in fact actually tending not
> towards edification, and of metaphysical argumentation and
> overspeculation leading to insanity, and to hostility amongst fellow
> beings, might be this very thread.
Yupper!
> ya gots ta love that old buddha guy, he rilly rilly knews his stuff,
> huh?!
Five by five.
- Pat
Bruce
>The many gods of old India had origins, and fates, but they had a creator
>god, Brahma.
Kohli correctly states the above belief, but it is a belief held by
Brahmanical "Hindus"; it was a belief demonstrably rejected by the Buddha,
as has been carefully shown.
Bruce
Bruce
Lee Dillion
> Powerless. Buddhism is doing a better job of it than is Baha'i. For all
> the nice sounding tenets of Baha'i, I rather doubt it is up to the task it
> has set for itself. At best you are expressing your religious hope, but
> that doesn't really have to say about how effective the "ancient"
> religions are. Mormonism, which is as old as Baha'i his doing so much
> world wide than is Baha'i. You might ask yourself why.
They make better fruit jello deserts.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Bruce
Lee Dillion wrote in message <37EC42B1...@micron.net>...
With marshmallows, of course. Yum.
>
>--
>Lee Dillion
>dill...@micron.net
Bruce
macleod wrote in message
<938230531.17562.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Bruce wrote in message <7sb9ou$1t0$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
>>
>>
>>>SHoghi Effendi said that he
>>>was not to be considered infallible in other fields than in the
>>>Teachings.
>>>
>>>Carol Ann
>>
>>
>>Could you cite Shoghi Effendi stating this. Obviously, then, his comments
>>about Buddhism, for example, are not to be looked upon as being
necessarily
>>true.
>>
>I don't think anyone else has answered this. One quotation is:
>
> "The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are
>related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is
not
>an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc.
>When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection of the
>Cause, even if it is something that affects a person personally, he must be
>obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous
>letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or
>not as you please."
>(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, pages 33-34)
>
>I believe you are right and His comments about Buddhism, for example, are
>not necessarily true.
Goodness, what kind of Baha'i are you. Surely Javid will be wagging a finger
at you, hissing CB, CB, CB.
I wonder why so many Baha'i are bending themselves out of shape try to prove
that he was correct about Buddhism.
Bruce
>For the Lord Buddha to affirm the existence of Brahma the creator was
>in no sense to affirm him as the focus of spiritual life, or as the
>Ultimate. Brahma created the material world. But who created Brahma?
>I can't recall the Buddha answering the question directly, but the
>answer is implicit in his teaching of dependent coorigination. The
>being Brahma is simply a result of a chain of causation that is
>limitless in its retrogression. What is key is that Brahma is CAUSED.
>He is not the Causeless Cause of western theology.
Actually, if you look at Digha Nikaya 1 and 24, you will see that the Buddha
does in fact deny Brahma as being a creator. He only thinks he is the
creator god.
In DN 24 we have this statement by the Buddha:
"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine
that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma."
and as part of the Buddha's elaboration of this we get a rather funny
picture of Brahma coming into being and imagining that he was the cause of
that and the cause of everything else that happened afterwards, but that
just is not so, according to the Buddha.
ez...@my-deja.com
of religion ... jumping in ...
Pat asks:
> Does the usual "good Buddhist" descend from the heavens, and ask the
> Enlightened One to teach the Dharma, lest teh world perish, as Brahma
does?
If he's a god he does. Buddhism does not traditionally deny the
existence of gods. What it denies is what is fundamental to Baha'iism
and other western monotheisms, the idea that One Deity is the source
and goal of spiritual life. In the story of the Buddha's
enlightenment, Brahma jumps in to beg the Lord Buddha to teach the
dharma precisely because he (Brahma) cannot do it. A god cannot attain
enlightenment, cannot arrive at a perfect grasp of the reality of
existence. Only a human being can do this. It takes a Buddha to
proclaim the doctrine of liberation for the benefit of ALL sentient
beings, including the gods (including Brahma). That is why one of the
titles of the Buddha is "teacher of gods and men." Gods are simply
beings who exist on a higher level of existence. Still, they are bound
by the laws of karma, and experience birth and death, albeit their life-
spans are exceedingly long.
> It is my observation that your teaching can be hard to reconcile w/
the
> Buddha's teaching.
Pat keeps making this claim, but it is evident to me that (s)he doesn't
really understand what the Buddha taught, nor its historical context in
the religion of India in the 6th century BCE (which was not "Hinduism"
... "Hinduism" is a modern, scholarly construct for the family of
religions that emerged in India partly in reaction to Buddhism, and
which share a common orientation to the Vedas and related texts).
> "Thus," replied the Buddha, "the Tathagata knows the straight path
that leads
> to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world
of Brahma
> and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."
No source indicated for this quote ...
The whole issue of "creator" here is muddled by the fact that Pat is
importing western, monotheistic ideas into the religions of India.
When Indians refer to a creator, they are thinking in terms of a being
who produced the material world. But that being is himself a product
of the process of arising and will ultimatley suffer dissolution. The
ancient Babylonians believed in a creator god (Marduk), but if one
reads the Babylonian story of creation (Enuma Elish), one discovers
that Marduk the creator actually emerged with the other gods from the
primordial chaos, personified as Apsu and Tiamat. Indian cosmogonies
are similar. It is also worth noting that not all Hindus affirm Brahma
as the Supreme Being. Gaudiya Vaishnavism (best known in the form of
the "Hare Krishna" movement) affirms that Krishna is the "Supreme
Personality of Godhead" and that Brahma, the creator of the material
world, is an emanation from Krishna. Shaivism, likewise, claims that
Brahma is merely an expression of Shiva, who is the ultimate.
Worshippers of Kali-ma, likewise, claim that the goddess is the
Ultimate. And the Impersonal Monists claim that Brahma is simply the
sum of all existence, and is not a distinct person. Get the picture?
For the Lord Buddha to affirm the existence of Brahma the creator was
in no sense to affirm him as the focus of spiritual life, or as the
Ultimate. Brahma created the material world. But who created Brahma?
I can't recall the Buddha answering the question directly, but the
answer is implicit in his teaching of dependent coorigination. The
being Brahma is simply a result of a chain of causation that is
limitless in its retrogression. What is key is that Brahma is CAUSED.
He is not the Causeless Cause of western theology.
Bruce has already refered to the Cula Malunkya Sutta (Majhima Nikaya
63), in which the Buddha speaks of the man shot with the poisoned
arrow, and discourages preoccupation with metaphysical questions such
as whether the universe is eternal or not.
I'd suggest that Pat read this text and some others -- without the
Baha'i glosses aquired from pseudo-scholarship like _The God of the
Buddha_. I'd also suggest that proof-texting from English translations
of the Dhammapada won't convince any but the already convinced... note
that, as far as I can tell (not knowing Pali, but having checked
several translations), the word "creator" does not actually appear in
Dhammapada 230.
> Though Buddha refers to the Creator, you say He rejects the Creator.
It is
> hard for me to reconcile these statements.
The Buddha seems to have affirmed the existence of Brahma as "creator"
in the sense understood by the thinkers of the time. This affirmation
is fundamentally different from an affirmation of an Ultimate Un-
created Creator.
Ezra
ez...@my-deja.com
Effendi, in which the "Guardian" asserted that no authentic writings of
the Buddha had been preserved. It is odd, therefore, to see Pat trying
to prove that the Buddha believed in a Creator by quoting Buddhist
Scriptures. If there are no authentic writings of the Buddha, how does
Pat know that what (s)he quotes actually comes from the Buddha? It is
obvious to me that Pat is doing what Baha'is do with scriptures from
all religions: (s)he is starting with Baha'i doctrine and then finding
proof-texts to support the Baha'i doctrines in an effort to make
converts. It's a dishonest way of dealing with people, and shows real
contempt for the convictions of members of other religions. For all
the talk of respect for other religions, Baha'iism is really a
triumphalist negation of what is unique and distinctive in each
tradition. Other religions are only valued as far as they can be
fitted into the Baha'i system. Whatever won't fit is cut off, negated,
denied, or condemned as corrupt. Baha'is do it with Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, as well as Buddhism, and members of
each religion cry foul! There has been more constructive and honest
dialogue between members of religions who were one at one another's
throats (Jews with Christians, Christians with Muslims, for example)
than there has been between Baha'is and members of other religions. As
a former Baha'i, I am well aware that Baha'i outreach to members of
other religions is always motivated at a fundamental level by a desire
to gain converts. Then, when someone joins Baha'i, he or she is
expected to abandon association with his or her previous faith
community and practice. Baha'iism "unifies" the world's religions only
in the sense that former members of various faiths, who become Baha'is,
are united in negating the distinctive features of their original
faiths.
ez...@my-deja.com
> I don't think Blessed Buddha rejected Brahma and I don't understand
how
> someone writes that Buddha rejected the creator god when I can read
> otherwise for myself.
You can, of course, think whatever you like. As I noted in another
post, your starting point is Baha'i dogma, and you HAVE to believe that
the Buddha ("Blessed Buddha"!!!) believed in an Ultimate Un-created
Creator. You can also find a proof-text here and there to prop up this
belief ... despite the fact that your "Beloved Guardian" affirmed that
no authentic writings of the Buddha are extant.
However, Bruce has made it abundantly clear that Buddhist scriptures
are full of statements by the Buddha that deny that Brahma is the
Ultimate, Un-created Creator. You have simply ignored all of this
evidence and clung to your idiosyncratic (and idiotic) interpretation
of a couple of references to Brahma torn from both their textual and
historical context. For the Buddha to affirm the existence of a being
named "Brahma" is not the same as affirming a particular belief system
about that being. Your Baha'u'llah spoke in glowing terms about Jesus
Christ, but I doubt you would agree that he affirmed everything
Orthodox Christians believe anout Jesus. Let me repeat the point: you
are simply ignoring all the other evidence that interprets what the
Buddha said.
It is evident that you think yourself quite clever ... and probably
many of your fellow Baha'is will affirm you in this ... but I doubt
you'll fool anyone else.
JulianLZB87
Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC1DA4...@ameritel.net>...
>Greetings!
Oh, it's you again.
Got a particular reason for including trb in your cross posts?
Not that it doesn't make sense....
you've got to get wisdom from somewhere.
JulianLZB87
Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC153C...@ameritel.net>...
>Greetings Professor,
>
>JulianLZB87 wrote:
>
>> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EAFE48...@ameritel.net>...
>> >Namaste!
>>
>> snip.
>>
>> Since this has started to be crossposted to talk.religion.buddhism
>> please do me a favour... start again so I can follow the thread.
>
>Thanks for your interest. I'm sure tons of ballast could be shifted to
>recreate how we got here. In a nutshell, Bruce wrote "Buddha rejected
>the idea of a creator god"; I took exception since the Buddha referred
>to Brahma in His Teachings. It would seem to me that when he mentions
>Brahma, He knows his audience understands Him to refer to the Creator -
>a simple matter of context.
>
>of light, virtue and wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
>the virtue of purity, virtue and wisdom, by such remarks?
>
Purity and virtue, whatever they are, maybe.
As far as wisdom is concerned, he'd only deride it to generate it in others.
>After Realization, did the Buddha reject Brahma, saying 'just go away'
>and then get into a constructive conversation with Mara?
I doubt it. I think he rejected Brahma prior to anything worthwhile.
>
>I don't think Blessed Buddha rejected Brahma and I don't understand how
>someone writes that Buddha rejected the creator god when I can read
>otherwise for myself.
You say Buddha didn't reject Brahma (in words to that effect.)
Do you mean that he encouraged other to worship it?
I must admit that I missed that lesson.
macleod
Pat Kohli
JulianLZB87 wrote:
> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC153C...@ameritel.net>...
> >Greetings Professor,
> >
> >JulianLZB87 wrote:
> >
> >> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EAFE48...@ameritel.net>...
>
> >Blessed Buddha taught that Brahma praises the man who is pure and full
> >of light, virtue and wisdom, as pure as a gold coin in the Jambu river.
> >If in fact, Buddha were also rejecting Brahma, wouldn't He be deriding
> >the virtue of purity, virtue and wisdom, by such remarks?
> >
>
> Purity and virtue, whatever they are, maybe.
> As far as wisdom is concerned, he'd only deride it to generate it in others.
>
> >After Realization, did the Buddha reject Brahma, saying 'just go away'
> >and then get into a constructive conversation with Mara?
>
> I doubt it. I think he rejected Brahma prior to anything worthwhile.
>
> >
> >I don't think Blessed Buddha rejected Brahma and I don't understand how
> >someone writes that Buddha rejected the creator god when I can read
> >otherwise for myself.
>
> You say Buddha didn't reject Brahma (in words to that effect.)
> Do you mean that he encouraged other to worship it?
No, I wouldn't say that. My impression is that Buddha Gotama taught people how
to live. I don't see anything in the Eightfold Path about prasada, soma or
incense. I see the Buddha's Teachings as a departure from the traditional
worship forms of His day.
> I must admit that I missed that lesson.
It was a long time ago, in a distant garden ;)
Blessings!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
ez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I'm an ex-Baha'i, sympathetic with Buddhism, and a professional scholar
> of religion ... jumping in ...
Thanks for jumping in. Various perspectives can be useful.
> Pat asks:
> > Does the usual "good Buddhist" descend from the heavens, and ask the
> > Enlightened One to teach the Dharma, lest teh world perish, as Brahma
> does?
>
> If he's a god he does. Buddhism does not traditionally deny the
> existence of gods. What it denies is what is fundamental to Baha'iism
> and other western monotheisms, the idea that One Deity is the source
> and goal of spiritual life.
Though Baha'is my see Allah as the Source and Goal of spiritual life, I
would hope we need not be "western monotheists". If Buddhists don't believe
that One Deity is the source and goal of spiritual life, that may be no big
deal, either; I think it is only theology. My concern was that someone
wrote that Buddha Gotama rejected a creator god. This appeared to me to be
factually inaccurate.
> In the story of the Buddha's
> enlightenment, Brahma jumps in to beg the Lord Buddha to teach the
> dharma precisely because he (Brahma) cannot do it. A god cannot attain
> enlightenment, cannot arrive at a perfect grasp of the reality of
> existence. Only a human being can do this. It takes a Buddha to
> proclaim the doctrine of liberation for the benefit of ALL sentient
> beings, including the gods (including Brahma). That is why one of the
> titles of the Buddha is "teacher of gods and men." Gods are simply
> beings who exist on a higher level of existence. Still, they are bound
> by the laws of karma, and experience birth and death, albeit their life-
> spans are exceedingly long.
This conception of gods is much like the Hindu, classical Greek, classical
Roman, etc. conception of gods . . . that they come into being, have
struggles, and go through changes. It is not a uniquely Buddhist
conception, nor do I find it particularly useful to me, but it is useful to
note the context. Would you say that alternative theolgies, perhaps
something like Wahhabi Islam, was present in northern India 2500 years ago?
Since not, don't you think this notion of creator god should be treated in
context?
> > It is my observation that your teaching can be hard to reconcile w/
> the
> > Buddha's teaching.
>
> Pat keeps making this claim, but it is evident to me that (s)he doesn't
> really understand what the Buddha taught, nor its historical context in
> the religion of India in the 6th century BCE (which was not "Hinduism"
> ... "Hinduism" is a modern, scholarly construct for the family of
> religions that emerged in India partly in reaction to Buddhism, and
> which share a common orientation to the Vedas and related texts).
FYI, I'm of the XY persuasion.
You are correct that "Hinduism" is a generalization of religions that
largely evolved in contrast w/ Buddhism. Perhaps you would offer a term to
categroize the relgious beliefs in general of northern India 2500 years ago.
As far as what the Buddha taught, that is the Eightfold Path (a given). My
interjection was on the Buddha denying a creator god.
> > "Thus," replied the Buddha, "the Tathagata knows the straight path
> that leads
> > to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world
> of Brahma
> > and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."
>
> No source indicated for this quote ...
The Two Brahmins, verse 30.
> The whole issue of "creator" here is muddled by the fact that Pat is
> importing western, monotheistic ideas into the religions of India.
Please explain what western monotheistic ideas I am trying to import, by
questioning the assertion that Buddha rejected a creator god?
> When Indians refer to a creator, they are thinking in terms of a being
> who produced the material world. But that being is himself a product
> of the process of arising and will ultimatley suffer dissolution. The
> ancient Babylonians believed in a creator god (Marduk), but if one
> reads the Babylonian story of creation (Enuma Elish), one discovers
> that Marduk the creator actually emerged with the other gods from the
> primordial chaos, personified as Apsu and Tiamat. Indian cosmogonies
> are similar. It is also worth noting that not all Hindus affirm Brahma
> as the Supreme Being.
Hardly any Hindus would consider Brahma a Supreme Being, just the creator
god.
What religions are you a professional scholar in?
> Gaudiya Vaishnavism (best known in the form of
> the "Hare Krishna" movement) affirms that Krishna is the "Supreme
> Personality of Godhead" and that Brahma, the creator of the material
> world, is an emanation from Krishna. Shaivism, likewise, claims that
> Brahma is merely an expression of Shiva, who is the ultimate.
> Worshippers of Kali-ma, likewise, claim that the goddess is the
> Ultimate. And the Impersonal Monists claim that Brahma is simply the
> sum of all existence, and is not a distinct person.
Perhaps the Monists see Brahman as the Supreme Being, and the Trimurti as an
obscuration.
> Get the picture?
See my question above.
> For the Lord Buddha to affirm the existence of Brahma the creator was
> in no sense to affirm him as the focus of spiritual life, or as the
> Ultimate. Brahma created the material world. But who created Brahma?
> I can't recall the Buddha answering the question directly, but the
> answer is implicit in his teaching of dependent coorigination. The
> being Brahma is simply a result of a chain of causation that is
> limitless in its retrogression. What is key is that Brahma is CAUSED.
> He is not the Causeless Cause of western theology.
So, you agree that Buddha did not reject a creator god?
> Bruce has already refered to the Cula Malunkya Sutta (Majhima Nikaya
> 63), in which the Buddha speaks of the man shot with the poisoned
> arrow, and discourages preoccupation with metaphysical questions such
> as whether the universe is eternal or not.
W/ no preoccupation w/ abstruse metaphysical musings, would there be any
point in the Buddha rejecting a creator god?
> I'd suggest that Pat read this text and some others -- without the
> Baha'i glosses aquired from pseudo-scholarship like _The God of the
> Buddha_. I'd also suggest that proof-texting from English translations
> of the Dhammapada won't convince any but the already convinced... note
> that, as far as I can tell (not knowing Pali, but having checked
> several translations), the word "creator" does not actually appear in
> Dhammapada 230.
Several years ago I picked up Juan Mascaro's translation and I really
enjoyed the Dhammapada. It is full of truth. I understand that Prof.
Mascaro may have inserted the word "Creator" in his translation for the
benefit of those who are unfamiliar with Indian religions. As I've written
elsewhere, "Brahma" is understood as the creator god.
> > Though Buddha refers to the Creator, you say He rejects the Creator.
> It is
> > hard for me to reconcile these statements.
>
> The Buddha seems to have affirmed the existence of Brahma as "creator"
> in the sense understood by the thinkers of the time. This affirmation
> is fundamentally different from an affirmation of an Ultimate Un-
> created Creator.
There is always some Omnipotent, Omnipresent Omniscent Invisible Pink
Unicorn that an enlightened one may deny. My concern was that someone wrote
that Buddha rejected a creator god. Thanks for jumping in and strightening
that out. Actually, though, I see Brahma largely mentioned in passing. I
would not press so far as to say that the Buddha affirmed Brahma as creator,
just did not reject Brahma. Would you care to offer some text that I am
unaware of, in which Buddha Gotama affirms Brahma as creator?
Blessings!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Bruce wrote:
> Actually, if you look at Digha Nikaya 1 and 24, you will see that the Buddha
> does in fact deny Brahma as being a creator. He only thinks he is the
> creator god.
>
> In DN 24 we have this statement by the Buddha:
>
> "There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine
> that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma."
>
> and as part of the Buddha's elaboration of this we get a rather funny
> picture of Brahma coming into being and imagining that he was the cause of
> that and the cause of everything else that happened afterwards, but that
> just is not so, according to the Buddha.
The Hindus understand the creator god does not create ex nihilo, he simply
creates.
http://users.deltanet.com/~lumiere/karma/kmbrahma.htm One should not attempt to
import western monotheistic notions into the mix.
I would suppose that the people who heard the Buddha's teachings already knew
this.
Blessings!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
JulianLZB87 wrote:
> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC1DA4...@ameritel.net>...
> >Greetings!
>
> Oh, it's you again.
>
> Got a particular reason for including trb in your cross posts?
The thread started on talk.relgion.bahai and my guess is that most of
the contributors on the thread are trb regulars.
Since the topic shifted to what the Buddha allegedly rejected, I thought
it might be useful to discuss it at talk.religion.buddhism, where the
trb regulars might be more knowledgeable on what the Buddha taught.
> Not that it doesn't make sense....
> you've got to get wisdom from somewhere.
The grocery store stopped carrying it. I try to borrow the wisdom of
others.
Blessings!
- Pat
Pat Kohli
Bruce wrote:
> macleod wrote in message
> <938230531.17562.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >I don't think anyone else has answered this. One quotation is:
> >
> > "The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are
> >related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is
> not
> >an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc.
> >When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection of the
> >Cause, even if it is something that affects a person personally, he must be
> >obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous
> >letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or
> >not as you please."
> >(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, pages 33-34)
> >
> >I believe you are right and His comments about Buddhism, for example, are
> >not necessarily true.
>
> Goodness, what kind of Baha'i are you.
I thought MacLeod was a Baha'i like me.
> Surely Javid will be wagging a finger at you, hissing CB, CB, CB.
Can you wait for him?
> I wonder why so many Baha'i are bending themselves out of shape try to prove
> that he was correct about Buddhism.
I wonder why you make a big deal about 'Abdu'l Baha not being infallible when
Baha'u'llah taught that no one but God was infallible. If Baha'is won't believe
Baha'u'llah, who would they believe?
Blessings!
- Pat
macleod
Bruce wrote in message <7shgno$82a$1...@grandprime.binc.net>...
>
>Goodness, what kind of Baha'i are you.
Fairly normal. The Faith is not monolithic in its views. You'll notice
Carol Ann for example made the point - I just provided the quote.
>Surely Javid will be wagging a finger
>at you, hissing CB, CB, CB.
I think I'm pretty safe quoting Shoghi. I don't think Javid or anyone else
considers that to be covenant breaking.
>
>I wonder why so many Baha'i are bending themselves out of shape try to
prove
>that he was correct about Buddhism.
I'm not sure but but I think it's pretty common in any religion or indeed
any other group for people to defend their leaders' opinions. Doesn't it
happen amongst Buddhists?
Pat Kohli
ez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > I don't think Blessed Buddha rejected Brahma and I don't understand
> how
> > someone writes that Buddha rejected the creator god when I can read
> > otherwise for myself.
>
> You can, of course, think whatever you like. As I noted in another
> post, your starting point is Baha'i dogma,
My entry in this discussion was Bruce's assertion that Buddha rejected a
creator god. This is not Baha'i dogma. Lighten your boat.
> and you HAVE to believe that
> the Buddha ("Blessed Buddha"!!!) believed in an Ultimate Un-created
> Creator.
How could I possibly know what Tathagata believed? I can know what He
taught by studying His Teachings.
> You can also find a proof-text here and there to prop up this
> belief ...
What belief? I'm not trying to say that Buddha Gotama believed in an
Ultimate Uncreated Invisible Pink Unicorn. I challenged the assertion that
Buddha Gotama rejected a creator god.
> despite the fact that your "Beloved Guardian" affirmed that
> no authentic writings of the Buddha are extant.
I have no Beloved Guardian; Shoghi Effendi passed on to the Abha Kingdom
before I was born. This has nothing to do with the assertion that Buddha
rejected a creator god.
> However, Bruce has made it abundantly clear that Buddhist scriptures
> are full of statements by the Buddha that deny that Brahma is the
> Ultimate, Un-created Creator.
Hindus say the same thing, yet acknowledge Brahma as creator god; the
invisible-pink angle is a smoke screen.
> You have simply ignored all of this
> evidence and clung to your idiosyncratic (and idiotic) interpretation
> of a couple of references to Brahma torn from both their textual and
> historical context. For the Buddha to affirm the existence of a being
> named "Brahma" is not the same as affirming a particular belief system
> about that being.
If you are trying to suggest that the Buddha's references to Brahma are to
some baker down the street, I think you have a tough row to hoe. Didn't
you write:
"The Buddha seems to have affirmed the existence of Brahma as
"creator" in the sense understood by the thinkers of the time. This
affirmation is fundamentally different from an affirmation of an Ultimate
Un-
created Creator."
> Your Baha'u'llah spoke in glowing terms about Jesus
> Christ, but I doubt you would agree that he affirmed everything
> Orthodox Christians believe anout Jesus. Let me repeat the point: you
> are simply ignoring all the other evidence that interprets what the
> Buddha said.
1) My concern was that Bruce wrote that the Buddha rejected a creator god.
I had the impression that this was inaccurate. You even seem to agree.
What are you concerned that I am ignoring? I was not alleging that Buddha
rejected a creator god, nor was I asserting that Buddha was affirming the
creator god; I was challenging that the Buddha Gotama rejected a creator
god.
> It is evident that you think yourself quite clever ... and probably
> many of your fellow Baha'is will affirm you in this ... but I doubt
> you'll fool anyone else.
Ezra, I'm not trying to pass myself off as a professional religious
scholar. The friends respect courtesy and manners far more than
cleverness. I doubt I impress anyone, but that is not my concern.
Blessings!
- Pat
Bruce
Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC651B...@ameritel.net>...
>Namste,
>
>JulianLZB87 wrote:
>
>> Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC1DA4...@ameritel.net>...
>> >Greetings!
>>
>> Oh, it's you again.
>>
>> Got a particular reason for including trb in your cross posts?
>
>The thread started on talk.relgion.bahai and my guess is that most of
>the contributors on the thread are trb regulars.
>
>Since the topic shifted to what the Buddha allegedly rejected, I thought
>it might be useful to discuss it at talk.religion.buddhism, where the
>trb regulars might be more knowledgeable on what the Buddha taught.
And they are supporting what I am saying.
Bruce
Me: "So, the Buddha accepts Brahma, turning him into a good Buddhist,
but we also see that the Buddha characterizes Brahma as being subject
to karma, birth and death."
Pat Kohli: > 'Does the usual "good Buddhist" descend from the
heavens, and ask the Enlightened One to teach the Dharma, lest teh
world perish, as Brahma does?' <
It is a neat way to incorporate Brahma into Buddhism by having him be
subservient to the Buddha, which is nicely illustrated in the following
story about a monk who goes to visit Brahma:
++++++++++++++++++++++
And it was not long, Kevaddha, before the Great Brahma appeared.
I am not surprised, though. I give something that you have yet to do, a
careful, reasoned argument with textual support for my position.
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <7si6ka$hn0$1...@grandprime.binc.net>,
Well, Bruce, I spent a few hours on the discussion last night. There
is a saying in Economics, "bad money drives out good money". On
newsgroup discussions I am more likely to respond to a message I
disagree w/ than one I agree w/. The short messages with the 'not all
Hindus worship Brahma as Ishwara" and a gratuitous insult thrown in,
such messages are more likely to get a response from me than the
message I believe that you refer to. I do know that I had one of your
messages open in reply last night; it seemed to me that it was the best
message I'd seen from you on that issue in a year or so. In hindsight,
I should have at least responded with that, rather than wasting my time
telling MrMahdi that he is not in the same league as you. I also
wanted to get back w/ cousin Michael on his message from (I believe the
previous day).
I'm sorry if I've presumed too much on your patience.
Blessings!
- Pat
Evelyn Ruut
JulianLZB87 wrote in message ...
>
>Pat Kohli wrote in message <37EC1DA4...@ameritel.net>...
>>Greetings!
>
>Oh, it's you again.
>
>Got a particular reason for including trb in your cross posts?
>
>you've got to get wisdom from somewhere.
Julian, that is ONLY if they bother to read the newsgroups to which they
have crossposted ;-) most do not. They want to be heard, but not to
listen.
Evelyn
patk...@my-deja.com
"Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> Me: "So, the Buddha accepts Brahma, turning him into a good Buddhist,
> but we also see that the Buddha characterizes Brahma as being subject
> to karma, birth and death."
>
> Pat Kohli: > 'Does the usual "good Buddhist" descend from the
> heavens, and ask the Enlightened One to teach the Dharma, lest teh
> world perish, as Brahma does?' <
>
> It is a neat way to incorporate Brahma into Buddhism by having him be
> subservient to the Buddha, which is nicely illustrated in the
following
> story about a monk who goes to visit Brahma:
I think the subservience is an inference of the reader. If the shift
supervisor asks the CEO how much product to make during his shift, the
CEOcould look it up, but he refers the shift supervisor to the foreman,
who is the shift supervisor's boss. This does not make the CEO
subservient to the foreman.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> And it was not long, Kevaddha, before the Great Brahma appeared.
> The monk drew close and asked: 'Where, friend, do the four great
> elements-earth, water, fire, and air-cease, leaving no trace behind?'
The
> Great Brahma replied: 'I, monk, am Brahma, the great Brahma, the
> Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the
> Controller, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his
place,
> the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be.'
>
> Again the monk asked Brahma: 'I did not query, friend, whether you are
> indeed Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Mighty . . ., but rather as to
> where the four elements earth, water, fire, and air, cease, leaving no
> trace behind.' Again Brahma answered: 'I am Brahma, the Great
> Brahma . . .'.
>
> And a third time the monk addressed Brahma: 'I did not query, friend,
> whether you are indeed Brahma, the Great Brahma ... but rather as to
> where the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air cease, leaving
no
> trace behind.' Then the Great Brahma took that monk by the arm and
> led him aside, and said: 'These gods of the Brahma world here, monk,
> hold that there is nothing I cannot see, nothing I do not know, and
> nothing that is not manifest to me. Therefore I did not answer you
> in their presence. I do not know, monk, where the four elements of
> earth, water, fire, and air cease without leaving a trace. You have
acted
> wrong, you have done ill by ignoring the Exalted One and going
> elsewhere to find an answer to your question. Go now to the Exalted
> One, ask him your question, and accept his answer.'
>
> Digha Nikaya 11
>
> +++++++
If the elements nowhere cease leaving no trace behind, should an all-
knowing one know where the elements cease, leaving no trace behind? I
don't see omniscience as a necessary prerequisite to being creator god.
> This story the Buddha tells certainly does not hold that Brahma is the
> omniscient creator of all. If Brahma were that, he would be able to
> answer the monks question, and here we have Brahma being subservient
> to the Buddha.
Bruce, you had asserted that Buddha Gotama rejected a creator god, if
you can prove that Buddha Gotama would logically reject an invisible
pink creator god because invisible and pink can be shown to be mutually
exclusive, that does not imply that Buddha rejected a creator god.
Brahma seems like a person, even w/ four or five heads it is impossible
for a person to be all-knowing. I concede Brahma is not all knowing;
that is not relevant. The concern is that you assert Buddha rejected a
creator god, yet the text suggest that Buddha accepted Brahma, who is
known to be the creator god.
> Me: "You try to correct me, but you are simply unwilling to listen to
> anything I have say, and in typical Baha'i fashion reject what I say
> because it does not meet your the needs your religion tries to force
upon
> the Buddha's teaching."
>
> Kohli: > "It is my observation that your teaching can be hard to
> reconcile w/ the Buddha's teaching." <
>
> For the obvious reason: you don't know the Buddha's teaching, and you
> are unwilling to learn from those that do.
Are you saying that the Buddha does not know the Buddha's teaching, or
are you simply asserting that I either won't read it, or am incapable
of understanding it, or deliberately contradicting it?
I have pointed out a few verses where the Buddha uses Brahma in his
teaching. i have pointed out a basis for why Brahma is understood to
be the creator god. Please cite one or more verses where the Buddha is
rejecting Brahma, the creator god, as you assert the Buddha does.
> Kohli, quoting the Buddha: > '"Thus," replied the Buddha, "the
> Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma.
> He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma
> and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata."' <
>
> But let us not forget that the Buddha referred to union with Brahma as
> a goal that was _hina_, a word that carries a very strong negative
flavor,
> meaning inferior, lesser. See MN 97. The Buddha took the Brahmanical
> goal of union with Brahma and gave it a strong ethical
reinterpretation,
> and for those Brahmins who were unwilling or unable, for whatever
> reason, to learn the straight path to nirvana, he taught his version
of
> union with Brahma. But in the over all schemata of the Buddha's
> teaching union with Brahma was very much a lesser goal, which is
> certainly understandable, since Brahma was still bound by karma
subject
> to birth and death, "subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be."
In the story of Two Brahmins, when the Tathagata tells them of this
Brahma union, does Buddha speak from tradition or from personal
experience?
If the Brahma is speaking from personal experience, is hina as in the
Lesser Vehicle, which some consider the True Teaching? But the Brahma
story tells that Brahma descended to Buddha, not Buddha to Brahma.
Perhaps the notion that man should strike out a path to Beyond is a
notion as futile as building a tower to God.
> Kohli: > "Though Buddha refers to the Creator, you say He rejects the
> Creator. It is hard for me to reconcile these statements." <
>
> It is hard for you to reconcile these statement for the simple reason
you
> do listen and you are quite unwilling to see beyond how Baha'i tries
to
> reinterpret the Buddha.
(sigh)
I wasn't aware that I've been arguing that Buddha taught the oneness of
God. I can't see much evidence of that; if anything theological
discussions seem to be avoided. I've been challenging your assertion
that Buddha rejected a creator god; I fail to see how that has anything
to do with Baha'i interpretation of the Buddha Gotama.
> To restate: The Buddha refers to Brahma, but
> he clearly rejects that Brahma was a creator. As the Buddha clearly
> states: "But even the Great Brahma is subject to coming-to-be and
> ceasing-to-be." Hardly a condition for an eternal creator god.
All the gods that I know of which would be known in that time and place
are subject to such conditions - this is not unique to Brahma nor
Buddhist understanding of Brahma. The fact remains that Brahma is
understood to be the creator god, even if he does meet your standards
of what a creator god ought to and ought not to be. If you wish to
argue that Buddha rejected a creator god, please do so using the
construct of a creator god suitable for the context - Brahma.
> Kohli grumps: > 'That it is not sophistry is simply your opinion. The
> reader can read for themself the explanation for how you determine
that
> the Buddha was actually rejected the notion of Brahma. The reader can
> can for themself the Dhammapada, verse 230, in the section titled
> "Forsake Anger"' <
>
> But you have not shown that it is sophistry. That the Buddha used
> Brahma as an exemplar of high moral development does not mean that
> the Buddha did not redefine Brahma in terms consistent with his
insight,
> thereby rejecting the idea Brahma was a eternal, omniscient creator
god.
The atributes of eternalness and omniscience are not necessary for a
creator god. The traditional Indian understanding of Brahma might be
that Brahma lasts for 4 and half billion years and dissolves into chaos
w/ creation for 4 and a half billion years before someone else emerges
as Brahma.
> Kohli in a state of bewilderment: > 'That is just what I said, you say
> that Buddha rejected the Creator; we read Buddha affirmed the Creator,
> you explain that it is really the "omniscient, permanent, independent,
> unique cause of the cosmos" which is rejected. I am left to wonder
how
> it is that Buddha is affirming the Creator - Brahma, while you claim
that
> He is really rejecting Brahma.' <
>
> The Buddha is rejecting the idea that Brahma is the creator. He keeps
> Brahma around as a way of appealing to Brahmins and as a way of
> showing his superiority to the Brahmanical position. The Buddha also
> uses Brahma as an example of high moral development, which is what
> we see in Dhammapada 230, but as we see elsewhere he rejects the idea
> that Brahma is a creator.
Please cite the verse where the Buddha rejects simply a creator god,
not the omniscient omnipresent omnipotent person; or some other
contradiction, but rejects the creator god. You asserted he did this,
I challenged, I've provided verses, you've provided interpretations
tied to attributions beyond creator.
> Kohli complains: > "To me the problem seems to be that you try to
> redefine Brahma as this that and the other thing (the sophistry).
Just
> about every Indian knows that Brahma is simply the Creator, which you
> assert that Buddha is rejecting." <
>
> I don't try to redefine Brahma; the Buddha did. That Brahmanical/Hindu
> Indians accept Brahma as being the creator certainly does mean that
the
> Buddha felt the same way. Obviously he did not.
Please quote the verse where _the_Buddha_ rejects the creator god.
> But since Kohli does what to believe me, I can offer the words of the
> highly respected Indologist Helmuth Von Glasenapp:
>
> Buddhism: A Non-Theistic Religion. Helmuth Von Glasenapp. Pub by
> George Braziller pages 27, 35-6, 39-42:
>
> Among the gods who are in contact with the world, Brahma is the most
> important. Brahma has not yet reached the highest state attainable to
> beings in Samsara for above his are other worlds; their inhabitants
are
> in continuous meditation and attain deeper spiritual states. However,
> these beings do not actively engage in the affairs of this world, and
so
> need not be discussed here.
>
> ...
>
> The appellations of Brahma in the Digha-Nikaya are the same as those
> of Ishvara in the theist schools, i.e. 'Almighty, Creator and Ruler
of the
> World, Father of all that was and will be'. In the Buddhist view,
these
> attributes are erroneous, for Brahma is not an eternal being as the
> ignorant believe him to be. Nor is he omniscient, for when the monk
> Kevaddha asks him where the four elements of earth, water, fire and
air
> finally cease without leaving a trace, he has to admit-after long
> hesitation that he does not know.
>
> Buddhists also deny the brahminical view of liberation being attained
by
> union with Brahma: Existence in the Brahma world can in no wise be
> compared with Nirvana. Much of what in Buddhist texts is said about
> Brahma obviously serves the purpose of presenting brahminical views
> as inadequate, and to use them as stepping-stones within the Buddhist
> system. So Brahma is mostly a humble devotee of the Buddha, and
> diligent in proclaiming his teaching.
>
> Brahma is the highest god in the Buddhist teaching, which thus retains
> a view which classical Hinduism no longer knows.
> ...
>
> The old, developed religions of India acknowledge a multitude of
> impermanent gods, all of then subject to karma. Buddhism and Jainism,
> and the classic systems of Mimamsa and Sankhya, consider all the gods
> without exception as karmically conditioned beings. Many orthodox
> Hindu and Brahmin sects, however, teach one uncreated, permanent
> world ruler (Ishvara) who is above all the impermanent gods. He exists
> eternally, and rules the cosmos and all individual beings. His
adherents
> attempted to prove his existence by philosophical arguments, or by
> appeal to Vedic revelation, or to other scriptures considered to be
> authoritative. And Buddhist apologetics at all times tried to justify
their
> different, atheist point of view. I present below the relevant
arguments
> of Buddhist masters and texts, arranged not in chronological order but
> according to their logical development.'
>
> Buddhism is a philosophy of becoming; consequently it cannot
> acknowledge the existence of an eternal, permanent and personal god.
> If there is nothing that is permanent in the world, if unconditioned
> substances do not exist, and if each personality is but a continuously
> flowing stream of changing dharmas, then no Ishvara can exist, no
> matter whether he is conceived as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or whatever.
> Therefore it is said (Abhidharmakosha): 'The assumption that an
lshvara
> is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in an
eternal
> self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance or personality). This
> belief is untenable as soon as it is recognized that everything is
> (impermanent and therefore) subject to suffering."
>
> Buddha says (Anguttara-Nikaya): 'As far as the suns and moons extend
> their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is
a
> thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a
> thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand
> continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm
of
> sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold
> world system reaches, the Great Brahma is the highest being. But even
> the Great Brahma is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be."
>
> ...
>
> Again from the Buddhist point of view, it is difficult for theism to
give
> a motive for the act of creation. If God created the world for his own
> pleasure, then it would seem that he delights in the existential
suffering
> of his creatures, in their being subject to illness and the pains of
hell,
> etc. And if God is almighty, then why has he made such a poor job of
> the world? And the final problem is: 'If God is the sole cause of all
that
> happens, then the effort of man is vain.'
>
> In the earliest literature Buddha is said to have stressed the
> incompatibility of the theory of a good and almighty god with the
> vileness of the world, and with the doctrine of the freedom of the
will.
> A summary from the Anguttara-Nikaya states: 'Some ascetics and
> Brahmins hold: "Whatever comes to man, happiness or suffering, or
> neither, all is caused by the will of the creator (issaranimmana)."
But I
> say: "So then because of the will of their creator and god, human
beings
> become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous,
> malicious and heretical." And those who rely on the creation of a
> supreme god lack the freewill to do what is to be done, and to refrain
> from doing what is not to be done."'
>
> The Bhuridatta-jataka poses the question why God does not make all
> men happy, and why he does not bring order into the world (ujj-
karoti).
> 'The lord of creation is unjust because though justice exists, he
created
> injustice as well'.
>
> Though Brahminical teaching is based on the Vedas and other canonical
> texts, it is of no value for the words of the Brahmins are mere lying
> chatter (asatpra-lapa). The Milinda-Panha calls them empty and without
> a real core. In the Vajrasuci -- supposed to be by Ashvaghosha -- the
> Brahminical scriptures are ridiculed."
>
> According to the Majjhima-Nikaya Buddha said: 'The Brahmins have
> handed on the old traditions down the generations, just as a basket is
> handed on; and they say: "This is true, and all else is false." But
is there
> but one among them, even back to their old masters, who can say: "This
> I know myself?" They are all like a lot of blind men, walking one
> behind the other, and none of them sees in front, at the back, or in
the
> middle'. The Buddha contrasts Brahminical wisdom based on revelation
> with an insight which, according to him, can be won by everyone who
> has developed the necessary prerequisites.
I'm guessing the Von Glasenapp selection ended and you threw this in
for comparison with the remarks of 'Abdu'l Baha on Buddhism? Can you
imagine how the early Buddhists looked on the ways of the Brahmins as
blinders, shades and chains, seeing that they had emphasized
misunderstanding over understanding? Can you imagine how early
Christians felt about the religion of the rabbis?
> Buddhism, however, is not satisfied in merely contradicting
> theist doctrines, but also developed a theory as to how the
> erroneous belief in a creator-god (Brahma) came about. The
> oldest version of this theory is already contained in the
DighaNikaya. I
> give this text with some interspersed comments. It starts with a
> description of the cyclic periods of world creation and destruction:
>
> After a long period of time, the world comes to an end. When this
> happens, all creatures escape-mainly into (the realm of) shining
beings
> (abhassara, i.e. gods of a higher realm that is not destroyed at the
end
> of the world). There they live, having bodies composed of 'manas';
their
> nourishment is joy, they shine by their inherent splendour, fly in
the air,
> and live in glory, for a very long time.
>
> After a long period, the world then begins anew. When this happens,
> first the empty Brahma palace appears. Then a being departs from the
> assembly of the 'shining ones' because his allotted life span is
over, or
> because his own accumulated merits (to which he owes his existence in
> the realm of the ,shining ones') are exhausted. He subsequently
appears
> in the empty Brahma palace of the newly emerging world. There he
> lives with a 'manas' body (see above), his nourishment is joy, he
shines
> by his inherent splendour, flies in the air, and lives in glory for a
very
> long time.
>
> However, after that being has lived in the Brahma palace for a very
long
> time he becomes lonely, and there arises in him the restless desire:
'Oh,
> if only other beings, too, might come into existence!' Then other
beings
> begin to depart from the realm of the 'shining ones', because their
> appropriate span of life is ended, or because their accumulated merits
> are exhausted. They also appear in the Brahma palace, and keep the
> firstcomer company. They, too, live there with 'manas' bodies, their
> nourishment is joy, they shine by their inherent splendour, fly in
the air,
> and live for a very long time.
>
> Then the one who came first into the empty Brahma palace thinks: 'I am
> Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Almighty, not subject to anybody, from
> whose eyes nothing remains hidden, undisputed ruler, the effective
one,
> the creator, the highest lord who rules everything according to his
> pleasure, the father of all that has been and will be. I have created
all
> these beings here. For in me there arose the thought: 'Oh, if only
other
> beings, too, would come into existence!' That was the desire of my
> heart, and lo! they came -into existence'. And in the beings that
> appeared after him the thought arises: 'This is the venerable Brahma,
the
> Great Brahma, the Almighty.... He, the venerable Brahma, created us
> all. For we found him here, and ourselves appeared after him.'
>
> This is a very interesting statement, for it assumes that even the
first
> dwellers on earth already had a monotheistic religion of some
primitive
> form. However, it traces this monotheism back not to an original
> revelation, but to an error of assumption by both God and men.
>
> Studying the above arguments against a personal creator and ruler, we
> find that the authoritative Indian texts of Buddhism show a clear and
> well argued, negative attitude towards the idea of God. And so
> Buddhism with its strict denial of a divine creator and world ruler
must
> be said to be atheist.
The Buddhist creation story looks like it shares a common origin w/ a
Hindu one, http://users.deltanet.com/~lumiere/karma/kmbrahma.htm To
me, it seems clear that the Indian notion of a creator is a person w/ a
beginning and an end. The Buddhists did not give Brahma a beginning
and an end, Brahma already had these and was understood as the creator
god.
The Indian notion of creation may seem circuitous; however, an
alternative notion of creation ex nihilo denies any perspective for the
innocent bystander to observe the event. Creation is necessarily
incomprehensible.
> There remains, however, the question whether Buddhism was atheist
> from its beginning, or whether its founder, the historical Gautama,
had
> another point of view. Some scholars attempted to clear Buddha of the
> accusation of atheism by suggesting that he never intentionally
touched
> on the problem of God, that his purpose was only to teach the path of
> self liberation, and that he therefore repudiated all metaphysical
> speculations. Other scholars are of the opinion that Nirvana or' the
> eternal, cosmic law replaces God in Buddhist teaching. And others
again
> suggest that Buddha did recognize a world ruler; or again, that from
the
> very beginning his adherents saw in him a liberated, eternal being.
All
> these widely differing attempts to prove the theism of Buddha are so
> many speculations, and cannot be supported from the texts. They also
> lack historical foundation: if such a great difference is assumed
between
> the teaching of the founder and that of the older texts of his
religion,
> then detailed evidence has to be produced to show how this
> revolutionary change took place. ... Yet, if one allows any
authority to
> the transmitted canonical scriptures, one will also have to admit
that in
> all probability Buddha's view did not vary greatly from that which is
> presented by all the later literature on the problem of God.
Thank you, Bruce. I had not concerned myself w/ speculation that
Buddha did teach the Companions to pray certain prayers. My concern
was that I don't think Buddha rejected a creator god. You can redefine
creator god all you want - but it matters not unless you believe in
such a god and I don't think you do. The creator god concept in His
day and place was Brahma, who himself had an origin and a fate - even
per non-Buddhist sources. If you are going to argue that Buddha
rejected a creator god, please use the available creator god, the one
with a beginning and ending. Please substantiate that Buddha rejected
_that_ creator god.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <7sigs6$15aa$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?
If you read all the newsgroups that you posted to, would you consider
it to be cross posting?
Messages on whether or not Buddha rejected a creator god got crossed in
to talk.religion.buddhism. If you have nothing to share on the
question, please feel free to share that. It had seemed to me that the
question may have some relevance to the teachings of the Buddha, if the
teachings of the Buddha is off-topic for talk.religion.buddhism, please
accept my apology for violating the rules.
Thanks!
Bruce
about Buddhism and notion of god.
(I tried to catch the scanning errors.)
From the ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF BUDDHISM
GOD.
Introductory. The English word God, probably like similar words in other
Teutonic languages, denoted originally anthropomorphic beings of a higher
order who were venerated. After the conversions of the Teutons to
Christianity the word came to be applied also to the one Christian
omnipotent deity. With regard to the many "gods" believed by the Buddhists
to owe their transitory existence to their karma see the article "deva". In
the context of this article the word God is used exclusively in the sense of
theistic dogmatics as a denotations of a self-existent eternal omnipotent
being that has created the world and rules the destinies of the cosmos and
its inhabitants. According to this view, God is the universal law-giver, he
is the final cause of all moral commandments and ritualistic regulations; as
the supreme judge he watches over their observation, rewards the virtuous
and punishes the trespassers. Through his revelations he has imparted to
mankind the knowledge necessary to understand the world and its history.
Besides being the Maker and Preserver of all things visible and invisible he
unites all glory, goodness and blessedness in himself, possessing all moral
excellencies and qualities; in the highest degree he owns absolute holiness.
It is to him that the afflicted turn to be relieved from their burden, and
the faithful hope for salvation through his grace.
The idea of a personal god to whom absolute power, wisdom and goodness are
attributed is common to
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vaishnavism, Shaivism and many other
religions. It is therefore comprehensible
that the adherents of these faiths expected to find in Buddhism also similar
conceptions of a supreme deity.
Perhaps the French traveller La Loubere was the first European who noticed
that Buddhism differs in this
respect from the teachings of the other great religions; speaking of the
Siamese he wrote in 1691: "I think that
one can establish that they have no idea of God."1 Later researches have
confirmed this statement in a similar way so that other writers frequently
have dealt with this subject. Even the German philosophers towards the end
of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century take up this
point; thus Immanuel Kant remarks: "(the Siamese Buddhists) reject the idea
of a divine providence they think that through a fatal necessity vices an
punished and virtues are rewarded."2 Arthur Schopenhauer, whose philosophy
had much in common with Buddhism, made a special point of the statement that
Buddhism is on "atheistical religion". He thought it "scandalous" that even
scholars made it a habit of identifying religion with theism.3
There are three ways in which champions of the idea that all higher religion
must acknowledge a creator and ruler of the universe try to harmonise
Buddhism with this conception:
1. Some (e.g. Father 'Wilhelm Schmidt)4 say that Buddhism is a philosophy
and not a religion. But this seems rather strange, because Buddhism has
places of worship, monasteries and other religious institutions. It
acknowledges also the existence of many supernatural beings (devas)
equivalent to the gods of the Greeks and other peoples or to the angels of
Christianity and Islam The Romans who coined the word "religion" also did
not understand the word in a theistic sense.
2. Others (e.g. Hermann Beckh)5 try to free Buddha of the reproach of
atheism by saying: Buddha wanted only to teach a way of salvation, he
disproved of all metaphysical speculation and left undecided the question
whether there is a God or not. But this is in obvious contradiction to, the
fact that Buddha has explicitly denied the existence of God, in some of his
sayings, as we shall we later on. Nor is an explanation offered of the
reasons why all the schools of the Hinayana have decidely rejected the idea
of God and have been eager to prove by argumentation that there can be no
Ishvara.
3. Others like Mahatma Gandhi have propounded the view the (Buddha taught
the existence of God, but that his pupils misunderstood him. Another version
of this theory asserts that what Buddha taught was a sort of Vedantic
pantheism. One refers to the fact that the Nirvana of the Buddhists is
similar to some aspects of the Brahma of the Upanishads. But there are great
differences in other respects. For never has a Buddhist taught that the
Nirvana is the cause of the world as the Vedantists do with regard to the
Brahma which is the "source of the world" Brahma-Sutra 1, 1, 2).
So all then attempts to construe an ancient "theistic" Buddhism are not
successful. They do not take into consideration the fact that even if one
may have some doubts about the authenticity of the words of the Buddha as
they are recorded in the most ancient texts, Buddhism since at least 2000
years has been opposed to the doctrine of a ruling God. Nor can it be
understood how in a system which flatly deprecates the idea of permanent,
unchangeable substance and which teaches a universal conditional
origination, the idea of a divine ruler and creator of the world-processes
can have a place. Indeed, with the exception of some later hybrid
semi-Hinduized forms of the faith all learned Buddhists of ancient and
modem, times are in conformity with J. Takakusu's dictum "Buddhism is
atheistic - there is no doubt about it."6
Buddhist arguments I against the existence of God: Already in the older
works of the Pali Canon many reasons are adduced to show that the
supposition of a ruler of the universe is not to be reconciled with the
belief in a moral order of the world. So the Buddha said according to
Anguttara nakaya:7 "There are certain recluses and brahmins who hold this
view: 'Whatsoever weal or woe or neutral feeling is experienced, all that is
due to the creation of a Supreme Deity (issara-nimmana-hetu)'. Then I say to
them: 'So then, owing to the creation of a Supreme Deity, men will become
murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers,
covetous, malicious, and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on
the creation of a Supreme Deity as the essential, reason there is neither
desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain
from that deed. So then, the necessity for action or inaction not being
found to exist in truth and verity, the term "recluse" cannot reasonably be
applied to yourselves, since you live in a state of bewilderment with
faculties unwarded."
In a, similar way also the verses in the Mahabodhi-Jataka and in the
Bhuridatta-Jataka remark that this world full of sorrow and ill cannot have
been created by a God (Brahma) who is good and almighty.8 The Buddha
rejects also the doctrine of the brahmans that there is a God who cannot be
seen,9 and denies that their traditions alleged to be founded on revelation
have any basis, for these traditions are forwarded by one generation to the
other included in the basket (of lore); but no brahmin can say that he
speaks from his own experience.10
As by some brahmins of his time Brahma was believed to be the supreme god,
the creator and ruler of everything an the father of all,11 the Buddha lays
special stress on the consideration that Brahma, about whose existence he
has no doubt, cannot be an omniscient, almighty eternal being. He is not
primordial and immortal but owes his experience to karma and is liable to
change and decay.12 Nor is he omniscient, as is told in the 'Kevaddha
sutta.13 The Buddha not only shows that Brahma cannot be the creator of the
world, but also offers a theory for the origin of this wrong view. (For this
and for the other' details see the article Brahma).
In the works of the great dogmatists besides these old arguments many others
are adduced.'14 An adisaga i.e. a "first creation" with which the whole
world-processes begins is impossible, because every state is dependent upon
another that preceded it; there can be no time when the cosmos did not
exist, at least in the latent form of the karma of former beings. If God is
the supreme ruler why did he not accomplish at one and the same time the
creation, preservation and destruction of the universe, for an eternal and
immutable cause ought to produce all its effects simulataneously.15 The
theory of dependent origination contradicts the assumption of one cause to
which everything can be traced. The doctrine of karma is incompatible with
the assumption of an almighty God, because his function would only consist
in being the, executing organ of the automatically working law of
retribution. There is also a difficulty in finding out the motive of God's
acting: if He acts without desiring to act he must be subject to another, if
He acts because he desires to act He is subject to desire and therefore not
independent. If there is it natural casuality - so that a shoot is produced
from a seed because many factors like the earth, the water etc. combine -the
supposition of God is quite superfluous, all the more as the activity of God
cannot be settled.
The concepts of the theists concerning Vishnu or S'iva as the god whom they
think as the unique I'svara [god, lord] of the world are very unsatisfactory
because they attribute to their supreme being partiality insofar as he loves
those who worship him and hates those who do not. He lacks the qualities of
a bodhisattva who does good equally to all beings. The theists of the
different sects are also at variance as to which of the gods is the highest
one and quarrel among themselves about this question.16
> Helmuth Von Glasenapp
God is a proper name of the deity who constitutes the basis of the (varying)
world-views or theologies (lit. "thoughts about God") that are espoused by
practitioners of Christianity.1 His attributes (which for most Christians
include being, eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, goodness
and creatorhood) have been matters of absolute presuppositions in Christian
history.2 There are many other English names for this deity, which are
always capitalized (e.g. 'Lord, 'the Holy', 'the Father', 'the Sacred,
'Jehovah'), but today 'God' is by far the most common. Capitalization of the
name distinguishes this Christian God from the 'gods' of other religions,
even though some of them, who am conventionally referred to in English
discourse by a native name (e.g. 'Vishnu', 'allah', Yhwh') rather than 'God,
closely approximate the Christian God in the eyes of their Vaisnava, Muslim,
Jewish) devotees. Because the theistic religions, Christianity included,
have been prone to claim exclusivity for the being eternality, omnipotence,
omniscience, omnipresence, goodness and creatorhood of their own Gods, the
creation and maintenance of linguistic rules for naming them have been
highly charged affairs, in bygone days, breaking these rules could even
result in execution.
The Christians (primarily missionaries) who first began to produce English
books about world religions in the lee eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries3 were heirs to such a tradition in which the name,'God', was never
employed casually. Although by then misuse of the name could no longer
result in death, it was still considered a road to perdition. If it ever
occurred to these people that 'God' might appropriately translate names of
the supreme deity in other religions, the idea was shunned as blasphemy.4
'God' named the heart and soul of Christians; to apply it to those "heathen
gods" whose very existence Christians were enjoined to deny was unthinkable,
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the use of the name, 'God,
became a matter of concern for non-Christians, too. Calling one's own deity
'God' allowed a vast range of polemical responses to Christianity to emerge
among the practitioners of the other theistic religions (who were largely
under Christian colonial domination). Certain Western-oriented Hindus, for
example, used 'God' in English discourse about Visnu or Brahma in order to
make universalistic claims.5 With quite a different motive did certain
Oceanic and African peoples describe (to missionaries) their native 'God'
(named with some approximation of 'Jehovah): a God who had been all-powerful
once but who currently was totally useless or dead, worthy of no more than
nostalgia or ridicule.6 Refusing to call one's own deity 'God' in English
also had polemical form, as it allowed a Muslim or Saiva to venerate as God
not 'God' but 'Allah' or 'S'iva'. In the West, too, the use or not of 'God'
by scholars and seekers of non-Christian religions reflected their own
beliefs and interpretations.
The first serious studies in English of Buddhism7 which were produced by and
for Christian missionaries (who needed to learn about the religions they
encountered in order to combat them), did not, of course, apply the name
'God' to the god known by the early Buddhists: Brahma (q.v.). Most
subsequent writers have followed suit: the god of Buddhist mythology and
philosophy is conventionally called 'Brahma' in English rather than 'God'.
But in the Buddhist case, opting against the use of the English name 'God'
does not reflect a bidden polemic with Christianity, for Buddhists have no
interest in defending any God: Brahma is the God of Brahmins, not Buddhists.
The Buddha and his followers borrowed the name from their Brahmanical
counterparts in order to refute, not only their theology but the basis of
all theologies: the idea of God. With philosophy as well as mythology the
Buddha reduced Brahma from Godness to participation in the pain of samsara,
denying all the attributes ascribed Him by the Brahmins and portraying Him
as, at best, a pious Buddhist. As this has been discussed in detail already
(s.v. Brahma-) it need not be repeated here. But it is important to note
that Buddhism's non-theocentrism has been a large part of its appeal to
nineteenth and twentieth century thinkers who are unable to accept God as an
absolute presupposition. Although Neitzsche had Zoroaster declare the death
of God, his anthropocentrism - his belief that man can surpass God - was
largely a product of his knowledge of Buddhism. The first great English
translators of Buddhist texts and scholars of Buddhism such at F. Max Muller
(editor of the Sacred Books of the East and Sacred Books of the Buddhists
series) and T. W. Rhys David s (founder of the Pali Text
Society) --established the lasting convention of calling Brahma 'Brahma'
rather than 'God', not in order to avoid blasphemy (like - their missionary
predecessors) as much as to preserve (e.g. 'Vishnu', 'allah', Yhwh') rather
than 'God, closely approximate the Christian God in the eyes of their
Vaisnava, Muslim, Jewish) devotees. Because the theistic religions,
Christianity included, have been prone to claim exclusivity for the being
eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, goodness and creatorhood
of their own Gods, the creation and maintenance of linguistic rules for
naming them have been highly charged affairs, in bygone days, breaking these
rules could even result in execution.
The Christians (primarily missionaries) who first began to produce English
books about world religions in the lee eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries3 were heirs to such a tradition in which the name, 'God, was never
employed casually. Although by then misuse of the name could no longer
result in death, it was still considered a road to perdition. If it ever
occurred to these people that 'God' might appropriately translate names of
the supreme deity in other religions, the idea was shunned as blasphemy.4
'God' named the heart and soul of Christians; to apply it to those "heathen
gods" whose very existence Christians were enjoined to deny was unthinkable,
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the use of the name, 'God,
became a matter of concern for nonChristians, too. Calling one's own deity
'God' allowed a vast range of polemical responses to Christianity to emerge
among the practitioners of the other theistic religions (who were largely
under Christian colonial domination). Certain Western-oriented Hindus, for
example, used 'God' in English discourse about Visnu or Brahma in order to
make universalistic claims.5 With quite a different motive did certain
Oceanic and African peoples describe (to missionaries) their native 'God'
(named with some approximation of 'Jehovah): a God who had been all-powerful
once but who currently was totally useless or dead, worthy of no more than
nostalgia or ridicule.6 Refusing to call one's own deity 'God' in English
also had polemical form, a it allowed a Muslim or Saiva to venerate as God
not 'God' but 'Allah' or S'iva. In the West, too, the use or not of 'God'
by scholars and seekers of non-Christian religions reflected their own
beliefs and interpretations.
The first serious studies in English of Buddhism7, which were produced by
and for Christian missionaries (who needed to learn about the religions they
encountered in order to combat them), did not, of course, apply the name
'God' to the god known by the early Buddhists: Brahma (q.v.). Most
subsequent writers have followed suit: the god of Buddhist mythology and
philosophy is conventionally called 'Brahma' in English rather than 'God'.
But in the Buddhist case, opting against the use of the English name 'God'
does not reflect a bidden polemic with Christianity, for Buddhists have no
interest in defending any God: Brahma is the God of Brahmins, not Buddhists.
The Buddha and his followers borrowed the name from their Brahmanical
counterparts in order to refute, not only their theology but the basis of
all theologies: the idea of God. With philosophy as well as mythology the
Buddha reduced Brahma from Godness to participation in the pain of samsara
[the round of birth and death] denying all the attributes ascribed Him by
the Brahmins and portraying Him as, at best, a pious Buddhist. As this has
been discussed in detail already (s.v. Brahma)it need not be repeated here.
But it is important to note that Buddhism's non-theocentrism has been a
large part of its appeal to nineteenth and twentieth century thinkers who
are unable to accept God as an absolute presupposition. Although Neitzsche
had Zoroaster declare the death of God, his anthropocentrism - his belief
that man can surpass God - was largely a product of his knowledge of
Buddhism. The first great English translators of Buddhist texts and scholars
of Buddhism such at F. Max Muller (editor of the Sacred Books of the East
and Sacred Books of the Buddhists series) and T. W. Rhys Davids (founder of
the Pali Text Society) -- established the lasting convention of calling
Brahma 'Brahma' rather than 'God', not in order to avoid blasphemy (like -
their missionary predecessors) as much as to preserve Buddhism's
Godlessness. Yet there is irony in the use of 'Brahma' rather than 'God' by
writers in English on Buddhism: it renders non-polemical one of the most
polemical stances taken by the early Buddhists. Translators could more
forcefully capture the spirit of the Buddhist critique in English if they
called Brahma 'God'.
> Gunapala Dharmasiri and Jonathan S. Walters
ez...@my-deja.com
Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> Namaste!
Now I get "Namaste!" ... in your first reply to me you opened with
"Allah-u-Akbar". Being aware that you greet people in this group
according to your perception of their religious affiliation, I was
puzzled about how you could think I was a Muslim. Then, I noted in a
later post, your suggestion that I am that Mr. Mahdi character. I am
not. I doubt that you'll be convinced, since you seem to find this
particular paranoid fantasy useful ... but *I* will, at least set the
record straight.
By the way, the appropriate equivalent of "Namaste" addressed to a
Muslim would be "As-salaam aleikum" ("Peace be unto you"). Unlike
Baha'is, Muslims don't go about greeting one another by ejaculating a
praise to God. I suspect they believe such behaviour would cheapen the
use of a such a phrase.
> My entry in this discussion was Bruce's assertion that Buddha
rejected a
> creator god. This is not Baha'i dogma. Lighten your boat.
I suspect my boat would be lighter if I tossed you overboard. I am
aware of the basis of your entry into the discussion. But what I have
seen is a string of obfuscations. I understand Bruce to have meant
that the Buddha denied the existence of an Ultimate Creator, of the
type posited by religions of Middle Eastern origin (I'll adopt that
term, since you object to the use of the term "western"). You shifted
the discussion to the essentially irrelevant issue of whether the
Buddha believed in the existence of the deity Brahma, who, in some
Hindu cosmologies, is identified as creator. My contribution started
with the assumption that the real issue here is whether the Buddha can
be fitted into the Baha'i scheme of Manifestations of a Single, Un-
created, All-powerful Creator God. I continue to maintain that this is
the real issue, despite your obfuscations.
> How could I possibly know what Tathagata believed? I can know what He
> taught by studying His Teachings.
How do you know what his teachings are? It appears to me that you
define his teachings as being whatever you say they are, and ignore
everything else (i.e. all of the texts Bruce has cited).
> What belief? I'm not trying to say that Buddha Gotama believed in an
> Ultimate Uncreated Invisible Pink Unicorn. I challenged the
assertion that
> Buddha Gotama rejected a creator god.
It is easy to win your case when you put the alternatives this way.
But such a practice is termed OBFUSCATION. Check a dictionary if you
don't know what the word means.
> I have no Beloved Guardian; Shoghi Effendi passed on to the Abha
Kingdom
> before I was born.
He dropped dead before I was born too. But when I was a Baha'i, I
almost always refered to him as "the Beloved Guardian", and so did most
of the Baha'is I knew, especially those in positions of leadership.
Has the Baha'i Faith changed so radically in 15 years?
> This has nothing to do with the assertion that Buddha
> rejected a creator god.
It has everything to do with it. You are a Baha'i. A fundamentalist
Baha'i at that. Shoghi Effendi asserted that there are no extant
authentic writings of the Buddha from which his teachings could be
identified. Yet, you are going merrily along trying to prove that the
Buddha affirmed Brahma as "creator" on the basis of quotes from a text
in the Pali Canon... one 'n', as Bruce noted ... although the way you
are using proof-texts as weapons suggests that "cannon" would be the
appropriate spelling.
(snip)
> If you are trying to suggest that the Buddha's references to Brahma
are to
> some baker down the street, I think you have a tough row to hoe.
Of course, I am suggesting nothing of the sort! Is this your typical
method of making you (weak) case? It is clear to me that the Buddha
affirmed the existence of a deity named Brahma. I assumed that he did
not explicitly deny that he had created things. It didn't seem an
issue to me, since the significant point in the Buddha's thought is
that there is no Ultimate Being to whom we can turn for salvation.
Bruce, whom I fully acknowledge as knowing the Pali Canon better than
I, has offered a number of texts in which the Buddha appears to deny
Brahma the status of "creator" in any sense. I have no interest in
arguing the point with Bruce. He has obviously made his case against
you.
> Didn't
> you write:
> "The Buddha seems to have affirmed the existence of Brahma as
> "creator" in the sense understood by the thinkers of the time. This
> affirmation is fundamentally different from an affirmation of an
Ultimate
> Un-
> created Creator."
Yes, I did. I may have to modify that representation in the light of
the Pali texts Bruce cited. The point of my contribution was to
indicate that IF the Buddha affirmed the existence of a "creator" (note
the word "seems" above), he was not thereby affirming a Creator in the
sense that Jews, Christians, and Muslims understand the idea. I am
convinced that there is more at issue than a simple disagreement over
the status of Brahma.
(snip)
> Ezra, I'm not trying to pass myself off as a professional religious
> scholar.
I take it that you are suggesting that *I* am trying to pass myself off
as such. How convenient! For the record, my area of specialized
training is ancient Judaism and the Bible. I'm also pretty competent
when it comes to Christianity and Islam. Asian religions are a
"hobby." This debate is a bit of diversion for me. I'm not posting
out of some sense of professional responsibility, but simply to engage
in some polemic. If you feel threatened by the fact that I noted my
professional credentials, that is too bad. What is the nature of your
training in the study of religion?
> The friends respect courtesy and manners far more than
> cleverness. I doubt I impress anyone, but that is not my concern.
It strikes me that courtesy and manners are singularly lacking in most
of the Baha'is who post here, yourself included. In this sense, the
Baha'i Faith does seem to have changed. I don't recall this kind of
aggressive apologetic and heresy-hunting 15 years ago. My tone
reflects my response to the behavior of the Baha'is whose posts I have
been reading for some weeks now. Like some others who have posted
here, my attitude towards Baha'is has hardened due to recent exposure
to them. Like Bruce, I am disgusted at the way Baha'is misrepresent
and denigrate the teachings of other religions in an effort to advance
their own.
Ezra
chino...@my-deja.com
rlit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Friends
>
> Regretfully, you have both misunderstood and misquoted me. I did not
> say "emphasise effects over causes", and the understanding of that is
> quite distinct from my meaning. Perhaps I was unclear.
perhaps so.
> By "Cause" I meant God.
which is a term without meaning or relevance within buddhism, so any
reference thereto - whether as "God" or as "Cause" - is nonsensical
within the context of the buddhist paradigm.
>By "effects" I meant the teachings of Buddhism
> which lead to enlightenment.
again, not the the buddhist use of the term. your lack of
understanding of the fundamental buddhist teaching on cause-and-effect,
i.e., karma, as evidenced by your failure to realise that you are
misapplying basic buddhist vocabulary, ought to give you pause before
you again pronounce upon buddhism in any way.
>I was saying that it appeared from the
> statements I have read here that Buddhism focuses on how to live
only as a means toward the goal of liberation from suffering and the
realisation of one's inherent already-awake buddha nature. getting
along in life is a nice corollary benefit, but really beside The Big
Point.
>rather
> than whether there is a God;
not only does buddhism not focus on this, it studiously ignores it
entirely.
we might just as easily say that christianity or the baha'i faith "do
not focus on" liberation from samsara (as in fact, neither addresses
the question at all, not using "samsara" as an operative concept
therein).
>that the spiritual and ethical teachings
> found in Buddhism seem quite strongly related to those found in the
> Book, of which Baha'i is the latest chapter.
umm... "play nicely with others" is indeed fairly universal.
beyond that, though, turning all the world's distinctive teachings into
a spiritual and ethical blancmange has always struck me as a
particularly unworthy pursuit, as much of the effectiveness of
particular teachings depends upon their distinctiveness within the
pradigm context from which they derive their power and insight.
ah, but that baha'i "one size fits all" thing...
>In another thread I wrote
> that the sparse mention of Buddhism found in the Baha'i Writings seems
> to me to refer not to the corruption of the actual Teachings (Word),
> but rather to the diminuation of effect those Teachings have upon the
> world.
whatever. that's an internal debate for baha'is, not unlike christian
examination of the question of how many angels really *can* dance upon
the head of a pin.
> Bruce contends that the words of Buddha have been perfectly preserved,
> something I find to be problematic, but not at all to the point, which
> is that the powerful spiritual impact those Teachings had in the first
> few centuries is not evident in the 20th century.
damn, boy, you *really* need to get out more. not to get into a
pissing contest, but buddhism is actually far more prevalent in the
modern world, even in the modern *west*, than is the baha'i faith, not
to mention its role in public discourse, influence upon everything from
literature (ever heard of kerouac and ginsberg, for example) to pop
culture to you name it. i can't recall the last Time magazine cover on
the explosion of baha'i-ism in the west, but as for buddhism...
so really, buddhism is impacting exponentially increasing numbers of
folks in the west, and of course is again also resurgent in tibet and
china after decades of repression there, and continues to be
extraordinarily powerful in countries from thailand to japan, korea to
cambodia, sri lanka to vietnam, and so on...
frankly though, the baha'i faith, on the other hand, seems in a phase
of stagnation, static in numbers, sadly persecuted in iran, non-
influential in modern society, and becoming irrelevantly mired in quite
conservative social mores such as official homophobia. not quite in
tune with the 20th century, eh, let alone the coming new millenium...
>THAT is perhaps the
> meaning, or one of the meanings 'Abdu'l-Baha' meant to convey.
again, whatever... that is an internal baha'i theological question, but
would it not really be more fun to be counting dancing angels?
> Individuals continue to discover the truth and beauty of all the
> worlds' ancient Faiths, and will do so into the far distant future,
but
> the Faiths' themselves no longer forge new civilizations and
societies,
> are in fact powerless in the face of the forces of materialism, of
self
> and passion which have overwhelmed every land.
wow, you really must lead a sheltered life... many different faiths
(and from what i can see, baha'i is not amongst them) are in
extraordinarily vibrant periods. catholicism, protestantism, and islam
are exploding across africa, protestantism and a renewed form of
catholicism are thriving throughout latin america, orthodox xianity is
in a renaissance throughout formerly communist slavic lands, a
buddhist and other renaissance is occurring under the noses of chinese
officialdom, and so on. and religious leaders from hh the dalai lama
to hh john paul II to many, many other less well known ones are vocally
speaking out - and having an impact on the debate over - the most
pressing issues of the day, from genocide to modern materialism to you
name it.
> A study of history illustrates that societies rise and fall,
> civilizations appear, grow, blossom and then wither. Humanity,
however,
> steadily matures and grows, impelled by a succession of Revelations
> which speak to the heart, mind and soul of man with increasingly
higher
> levels of truth. There is no reason to believe that the future will
> differ in this regard, and so why would the present be different than
> the past or the future?
baha'i may accept this cheery assessment of the inevitability of
Progress; this is yet another way in which buddhism is not baha'ism (as
also is the existence of divine Revelations).
> There is an enormous spiritual hunger evident in the world today, and
> Buddhism is attracting a following, but I do not believe that that
> beautiful, ancient Faith has the ability to transform this morally
> decadant and spiritually moribund society.
then you truly have not seen it in action.
>I do believe that the Baha'i
> Faith does. I am a Baha'i and so I have some knowledge of the power
> which this Faith contains within it. I have seen it at work,
> regenerating individuals and societies.
which "societies" would *those* be? i am aware of no society anywhere
in which baha'ism is really a significant force, let alone a society-
wide regenerative force; please clarify.
as for individuals, ah well, surely you realise every buddhist (and
xian, and muslim, and...) can testify to having seen the same effect?
nothing unique to baha'ism there.
> You do not believe that the universe is itself an effect.
yet again, this demonstrates fundamental ignorance of actual buddhist
teachings. of *course* "the universe" is an effect; as it stands at
any given moment, it is the sum of all the karmic seeds (the causes)
that have to that point ripened and bore their fruit (the effects).
>I have no
> objection or problem with your belief,
nor i, per se, with yours, except when you are mischaracterising
buddhist teachings or, by any objective yardstick, misportraying the
curent state of buddhism in the world today.
> but I do not understand why
> someone who is dedicated to enlightenment would come here with nothing
> but answers.
where is "here"? i am writing to t.r.b.; if it goes anywhere else, it
is because some baha'i once again started this thread in order to
proselytise that one-size-fits-all, all-is-One-Religion religion.
and no, i would not have *questions* about buddhism to direct to a
baha'i who clearly knows only what the misinformed, misunderstanding
bab & co. had to say about it over the past century.
> If you are knowledgeable, you know how to ask questions.
>
> Do you have any questions?
why yes, i do: why do you not better educate yourself regarding
buddhism, before attempting to portray it as you have?
cheers,
chino
> Robert A. Little
>
> In article <7sgpng$nj4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <7sgfoi$ftm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > rlit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Dear Friends
> > >
> > > Actually, it has been "enlightening", if not always respectful and
> > > loving.
> > >
> > > What I have gleaned from this is that in Buddhism the existence
and
> > > reality of a Primal Cause was hidden rather than revealed. The
> > emphasis
> > > in Buddhist Teachings seems to me, based on this thread, to have
> been
> > > on the "effect" rather than the "Cause", and that the Teachings
> > > regarding that effect are quite similar in most regards to those
> found
> > > in the Abrahamic Faiths in which the existence and reality of a
> > Creator
> > > plays a significant role. Fascinating.
> > >
> > > I suspect others will have come to different conclusions.
> > >
> > > Diversity is good.
> >
> > sure, except when it tries to make buddhism do contortions in order
> for
> > somebody to be able to incorrectly assert something about buddhism
(or
> > any other religion) based solely upon superficial knowledge, or even
> > fundamental misunderstanding, thereof.
> >
> > contrary to your gleaning, buddhism does not somehow "emphasise
> effects
> > over causes". it simply denies the possibility - and the
usefulness -
> > of knowing whether or not there was a FIRST cause. in his famous
> > metaphor, the buddha likened such questions to the person who, upon
> > being shot through with a poison arrow, demands to know who made the
> > arrow, who cooked up the poison, who shot the angle and from where,
> and
> > so on. such curiosity does nothing at all to remove the arrow, and
> the
> > detour down such avenues of inquiry in fact prevents one from
pulling
> > out the arrow and getting the poison antidoted in time to help.
> >
> > but the buddha never said, just focus on your wound and not on the
> fact
> > that it is caused by an arrow, and never said, in future, learn from
> > this that perhaps you should stop hanging out near archery ranges,
and
> > maybe even you should take up wearing an arrow-proof vest whilst out
> > and about.
> >
> > in other words, buddhism is very *much* about causes, every bit as
> much
> > as effect - for indeed, they arise simulataneously, we are taught,
> even
> > if one ripens later than the other. the *only* way to 100% prevent
> the
> > seed from ripening, is to make sure it never gets planted - which
> means
> > understanding the *relationship* of cause and effect.
> >
> > and for a buddhist, cause and effect - together - is all there is in
> > the way of being able to "save" oneself, for no external actor, no
> deus
> > quite literally ex machina, is standing offstage intervening in our
> > affairs.
> >
> > cheers,
> > chino
> >
> > > Robert A. Little
> > >
> > > In article <7sgbgb$ces$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <37EAF86C...@ameritel.net>,
> > > > Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Bruce, surely you read this before:
> > > > > "He whom the intelligent praise
> > > > > After careful examination,
> > > > > He who is of flawless life, wise,
> > > > > And endowed with knowledge and virtue
> > > > > Who would dare to blame him
> > > > > Who is like refined gold?
> > > > > Even the gods praise him,
> > > > > By Brahma too he is admired."
> > > > > http://www.edepot.com/dhamma4.html scroll down to '17.
Anger'.
> > > >
> > > > that is nice, but says nothing about brahma being creator or
> supreme
> > > > high honcho or anything of the sort.
> > > >
> > > > all you folks espousing a baha'i-style forcing of the buddhist
> > circle
> > > > into a square hole are forgetting (or else simply ignoring) the
> > sutra
> > > > passage (another buddhist want to help me on the citation? i
can
> > not
> > > > recall, but know it is in there) wherein the buddha has a laugh
at
> > > > brahma's expense, as it were, noting that brahma is such a very
> old
> > > > being, older than other beings, that when worlds and beings
began
> to
> > > > arise, he mistakenly assumed *he* had brought them into being.
> > > >
> > > > hardly "affirming" brahma as creator, eh what?
> > > >
> > > > > Note to those unfamiliar with the Pali cannon - "the
Dhammapada"
> > is
> > > > one of the
> > > > > most widely translated selections from this body of Sacred
> Texts.
> > > > >
> > > > > That Brahma, who Buddha referred to, is the Creator, can be
> > > confirmed
> > > > by a
> > > > > review of Hindusim:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brahma is the god first represented in the Hindu Triad (see
> > > > Trimurti). He is
> > > > > the creator of the universe and all living beings are said to
> have
> > > > evolved from
> > > > > him".
> > > > > http://www.acornis.com/india/imystica/brahma.html
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brahma is the creator god and his main function is just
that."
> > > > > http://alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/sg/hinduism/1hin.html
> > > >
> > > > all of these sources as to the hindu understanding of brahma
are,
> > > > again, all quite lovely, yet it is a major logical fallacy to
> assume
> > > > that they speak one whit to the question of the *buddhist*
> > > > understanding of brahma.
> > > >
> > > > for example, the mainstream christian understanding of jesus of
> > > > nazareth is that he is the Son of God, the Saviour of humanity.
> to
> > > say
> > > > so, says absolutely nothing about the muslim understanding of
him,
> > > > which most certainly denies him both divinity and his mission as
> > > > messiah/saviour. yet he is an important figure in muslim
> theology,
> > as
> > > > a major prophet, though of course not the Seal of the Prophets
> (and
> > i
> > > > ain't thinkin' of baha'ullah here...) to muslims.
> > > >
> > > > similarly, buddhism accords a minor cosmological place to
brahma,
> > but
> > > > the buddhist understanding of him is *radically* different from
> the
> > > > hindu one. not only is brahma not the Creator (re the buddha's
> > > > *precise* position on whether or not there is a Creator, see
> below),
> > > > but the buddha was also quite clear that brahma was, in the
final
> > > > analysis, just another sentient being, and was subject to aging
> and
> > > > ultimately death.
> > > >
> > > > just as the christian view of jesus does not correctly portray
for
> > us
> > > > the muslim view of jesus, so too, the hindu view of brahma does
> not
> > > > correctly portray for us the buddhist view of brahma.
> > > >
> > > > > > > "May the Primal Cause guide us all in the straight path" <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Primal cause is certainly not something the Buddha taught,
nor
> > is
> > > it
> > > > > > compatible with the underlying philosophical structure of
his
> > > > teaching.
> > > >
> > > > actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether
there
> > > > was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
> > > > edification", a set of metaphysical questions he expressly
refused
> > to
> > > > answer for his students and which he regarded as so thoroughly
> > > > imponderable and unanswerable (at least for us ordinary humans)
> that
> > > it
> > > > would drive us quite literally insane to ponder them overmuch,
and
> > > also
> > > > as being utterly irrelevant to the methods of self-liberation
> which
> > he
> > > > propounded.
> > > >
> > > > a sterling example of these questions in fact actually tending
not
> > > > towards edification, and of metaphysical argumentation and
> > > > overspeculation leading to insanity, and to hostility amongst
> fellow
> > > > beings, might be this very thread.
> > > >
> > > > ya gots ta love that old buddha guy, he rilly rilly knews his
> stuff,
> > > > huh?!
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > > chino
chino...@my-deja.com
"Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
>
> >actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
> >was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
> >edification",
>
it is right there in the sutras. are you saying you can channel the
buddha and he told you the sutras misquote him? what authority do you
have for your bizarre claim?
chino...@my-deja.com
Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
> So, if the question of a creator is a distraction, would you agree
> that Buddha answered that question by rejecting a creator god?
according to the sutras, he:
did *not* reject a creator god; but also,
did not *accept* a creator god; and
specifically denied that *brahma* was a creator god; and
said that whether there was a creator god or not was totally
*irrelevant* to his teachings; and
would drive one nuts, for no point at all, to speculate thereupon.
and that's all s/he wrote, folks.
how baha'is could then twist that to their own purposes to make that
sound like some sort of an *affirmation* of a creator god is beyond
both me and any reasonable type of logic.
chino...@my-deja.com
Pat Kohli
(this looks like something I replied to on dejanews (or here), but I'm not
seeing it here yet, please accept my apologies if I've caused any
confusion.)
ez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > I don't think Blessed Buddha rejected Brahma and I don't understand
> how
> > someone writes that Buddha rejected the creator god when I can read
> > otherwise for myself.
>
> You can, of course, think whatever you like. As I noted in another
> post, your starting point is Baha'i dogma, and you HAVE to believe that
> the Buddha ("Blessed Buddha"!!!) believed in an Ultimate Un-created
> Creator.
Please accept my apology if a failed to question your assertion regarding
my starting point, in a manner such that you've repeated what appears to be
a confusing point. As _you_ noted, the basis for my challenge to Bruce's
assertion that the Buddha rejected the creator god, was verse 230 of the
"Dhammapada". If you are now suggesting that the "Dhammapada" is Baha'i
dogma, may I suggest that you either present the basis for such an
assertion, or quit your day job and take up fantasy writing full time?
Please accept my apology if a failed to question your assertion regarding
my belief in the Buddha's belief, in a manner such that you've repeated
what appears to be a confusing point. I don't know what the Buddha
believed, beyond what the Buddha taught. I challenged the assertion that
the Buddha taught there was no creator god. My challenge is based on the
teachings of the Buddha as recorded in the ancient texts. My objection ws
soleley to creator god, not invisible pink dissolver god, not omnipresent,
omnipotent, omnisicient person god, not Ultimate Un-created Creator god,
just the creator god available to the Buddha's audience 2500 years ago in
Northern India.
> You can also find a proof-text here and there to prop up this
> belief ... despite the fact that your "Beloved Guardian" affirmed that
> no authentic writings of the Buddha are extant.
I have no Beloved Guardian; Shoghi Effendi passed on to the Abha Kingdom
before I was born and I recognize no one who claims such a station. That
there are no authentic writings of the Buddha may be something not in
dispute; does anyone claim to have teachings of the Buddha which He
personally reviewed and authenticated?
> However, Bruce has made it abundantly clear that Buddhist scriptures
> are full of statements by the Buddha that deny that Brahma is the
> Ultimate, Un-created Creator.
My exception was w/ Bruce's assertion that Buddha rejected a creator god,
simply that. Perhaps we'll discuss this other Ultimate Unoriginate some
other day.
> You have simply ignored all of this
> evidence and clung to your idiosyncratic (and idiotic) interpretation
> of a couple of references to Brahma torn from both their textual and
> historical context.
Though you yourself seemed to have said that Buddha affirmed the creator
god (a step farther than I took), I am puzzled as to just what point you
are now trying to make.
> For the Buddha to affirm the existence of a being
> named "Brahma" is not the same as affirming a particular belief system
> about that being.
Agreed. His references to Brahma need to be understood in the context of
Northern India 2500 years ago, not suburban Vancouver 1999 CE.
> Your Baha'u'llah spoke in glowing terms about Jesus
> Christ, but I doubt you would agree that he affirmed everything
> Orthodox Christians believe anout Jesus. Let me repeat the point: you
> are simply ignoring all the other evidence that interprets what the
> Buddha said.
I'm confused as to just what you think I'm ignoring.
> It is evident that you think yourself quite clever ... and probably
> many of your fellow Baha'is will affirm you in this ... but I doubt
> you'll fool anyone else.
Cleverness is not so highly admired among Baha'i as courtesy and manners. I
doubt I impress anyone. My concern was that the teachings of the Buddha
were being misreperesented by one who was previously corrected.
Blessings!
- Pat
ez...@my-deja.com
> it is right there in the sutras. are you saying you can channel the
> buddha and he told you the sutras misquote him? what authority do you
> have for your bizarre claim?
Since you evidently disagree with Bruce about what the Buddha taught,
isn't it appropriate that you refer him to the sutra texts that support
your position? At this point, all you have done is toss a couple of
snide comments at Bruce, and assert that "it is right there in the
sutras" ... well, which ones? Given Bruce's comments, it appears that
he is unfamiliar with the texts upon which you base your position. It
would be the skillful and compassionate thing to clear up his alleged
ignorance ... can you?
So far, it looks to me that Bruce has made an affective case for the
position that the Buddha DID address the question whether there was a
Creator, and answered it in the negative. He's cited Buddhist
scripture. You haven't. Your turn!
Ezra
Bruce
chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sj101$5vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7sgdqr$lqe$1...@grandprime.binc.net>,
> "Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
>> >was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
>> >edification",
>>
>> I hear this, even from Buddhists, but this is not so.
>
>buddha and he told you the sutras misquote him? what authority do you
>have for your bizarre claim?
There 14 _avyakata_s. None of them have to do with a creator/god/supreme
being. I'll be hppy to quote them from the Pali, but I'll let you go first.
Maybe I might learn something.
>
>cheers,
>chino
Carol Ann
>
>
> Disagree about what? What books. You are doing the typical Baha'i
thing,
> which being unwilling to listen to others and explore an issue.
>
>
Whoa! I just interpolated a few questions, and drew a conclusion, and
here you are saying that I am unwilling to listen and explore an issue.
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
I haven't really said anything, since as I said the books (which I read
quite a while ago and will look up for you if you really care) didn't
make things very clear. So, here I am reading this thread all agog to
find out what you are saying, and what I should know. Peace, friend,
peace.
--
Carol Ann
Bruce
>>rather
>> than whether there is a God;
>
>not only does buddhism not focus on this, it studiously ignores it
>entirely.
That is not true of Indian Buddhism, which had to contend with the notion of
god and did so at length over its tenure in India.
Bruce
chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sj1cu$6a0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <37EC1DA4...@ameritel.net>,
> Pat Kohli <ko...@ameritel.net> wrote:
>
>> So, if the question of a creator is a distraction, would you agree
>> that Buddha answered that question by rejecting a creator god?
>
>according to the sutras, he:
>
>did *not* reject a creator god; but also,
That is a late Western take on the issue. Rejecting Brahma's creatorhood is
tantamount in the historical context to rejecting what we now call god.
Carol Ann
Bruce
chino...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sj101$5vd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7sgdqr$lqe$1...@grandprime.binc.net>,
> "Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >actually, he also specifically characterised it (and whether there
>> >was/is a "Creator") amongst the "questions that tend not towards
>> >edification",
>>
>> I hear this, even from Buddhists, but this is not so.
>
>it is right there in the sutras. are you saying you can channel the
>buddha and he told you the sutras misquote him? what authority do you
>have for your bizarre claim?
>
>chino
The "unanswered questions:
1. The world is eternal.
2. The world is not eternal.
3. The world is (spatially) infinite.
4. The world is not (spatially) infinite.
5. The soul (jiva) is identical with the body.
6. The soul is not identical with the body.
7. The Tathagata (that, is perfectly enlightened beings) exists after
death.
8. The Tathagata does not exist after death.
9. The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
10. The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.
(Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 63 and 72)
In Pali there is 10, and in the Sanskrit the is 14, giving two more
variations on 1 and 2. No mention of anything that looks like a god here.
Please see Digha Nikaya 1 for a discussion of the creator.
Kohli: > "...rather than whether there is a God;" <
Chino: > "not only does buddhism not focus on this, it studiously ignores it
entirely." <
===
Dharmakiirti's refutation of theism
By Roger Jackson
Philosophy East and West
36:4 Oct. 1986 p. 315-348
p. 315
I. INTRODUCTION
Indian civilization, no less than that of the West,
is haunted by the concept of God, and Indian
philosophical writing, no less than the works of
Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, or Hume, has as one of its
important concerns the existence or nonexistence of
an omniscient, eternal, independent, benevolent being
who creates and/or designs the cosmos. Despite Lin
Yutang's description of India as a nation
"intoxicated with God,"(1) Indian skepticism about
such a being goes back very far indeed,(2) and
explicit arguments against theism find an important
place in the writings of Buddhism, Jainism, and
Miimaa.msaa (as they must have in the lost writings
of Caarvaaka) , while God's importance or even
existence for early Saa.mkhya, Nyaaya, and Vai`se.sika
is at best moot.(3) Indeed, the only Indian philosophical
systems that are explicitly theistic are Vedaanta,
Yoga, and later, Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika. It undoubtedly
is due to the overwhelming preference for Vedaanta
among modern exponents of Indian philosophy that
Indian tradition so often is presented through
theistically-shaded lenses, and it is not incorrect
to assert that, in general, Indian civilization has
become more theistic during the same period in which
the West has become less so. Still, this should not
blind us to the fact that as recently as five hundred
years ago thinkers like the Jaina Gu.naratna were
adducing sharp and original arguments against
theistic assertions, and that even today the
unanimity of Indian belief in God may not be as
thoroughgoing as most swamis and scholars would have
us believe.(4)
...
...it is equally clear that theism in the sense in
which I am using it--as the assertion of an
omniscient, permanent, independent, unique cause of
the cosmos--is rejected throughout the length and
breadth of the Indian Buddhist tradition.
Dharmakiirti's antitheistic arguments may have taken
the Buddhist critique to a new level of
sophistication, but he had behind him a millennium of
refutations, with many of which he undoubtedly was
familiar, and which ought to be borne in mind when we
consider his discussion.
The Paali Nikaayas contain a number of explicit
rejections of theism, and some important implicit
ones, as well.
...
For the later Buddhist philosophical tradition,
however, the most important early arguments are perhaps
the implicit ones: those many passages in the Nikaayas
where the concept of a permanent attaa or aatman is
rejected, principally on the grounds that no
permanent entity is or can be encountered in
experience or justified by reason. It really is
Buddhism's emphasis on universal impermanence that is
at the root of its aversion to the concept of God, as
became evident in the sorts of refutations offered in
the post-nikaaya period (when the attributes of the
creator, identified by the Buddhists as ii`svara,
perhaps had become more clearly defined).
Poussin remarks that Buddhist refutations of ii`svara
"ont le tort de se repeter."(39) It is true that
certain points are stressed again and again, but the
arguments do vary; indeed, their uniformity is more
in style than substance: virtually all are couched in
the form of logical dilemmas, in which the
predication of this or that attribute of ii`svara is
shown to lead to unacceptable conclusions, no matter
how it is qualified. Post-nikaaya, pre-Dharmakiirti
arguments are thus broadly "logical," without being
specifically inferential.
1. Lin Yutang, ed., The Wisdom of China and India
(New York: Modern Library, 1942), p. 11.
2. Compare such "skeptical" Vedic passages as. Rg
(.Rgveda) II, 12, 5; IV, 18, 12; and VIII, 100, 3;
and their discussion in Depibrasad Chattopadhyaya,
Indian Atheism (Calcutta: Manisha, 1969), pp.
32-43. Chattopadhyaya's book, while occasionally
straining for evidence that one or another
ambiguous passage is atheistic, presents overall a
compelling picture of the pervasiveness of atheism
in Indian philosophical (if not religious)
3. Compare Chattopadhyaya, Indian Atheism, chaps. 9
and 16.
4. Compare, for example, ibid., chap. 14; and
Narendranath Bhattacharyya, Jain Philosophy:
Historical Outline (New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1976), pp. 93-108.
...
39.Louis de la Vallee Poussin,
Vij~naptimaatrataasiddhi: La Siddhi de Hiuan-Tsang
(Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1928), I, p. 30
====
As Dharmakirti so gently puts it:
"The unquestioned authority of the Vedas; THE BELIEF IN A
WORLD-CREATOR; the quest for purification through ritual bathings;
the arrogant division into castes; the practice of mortification to atone
for sin -- these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men."
Carol Ann
It's not Baha'i, it's the Baha'i Faith.
It's not Bahaiism, it's the Baha'i Faith.
A person is a Baha'i, as a person is a Muslim.
I was wondering, do a lot of Baha'is post attacks on other religions to
other religious newsgroups?
Best regards,
chino...@my-deja.com
"Bruce" <brb...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>rather
> >> than whether there is a God;
> >
> >not only does buddhism not focus on this, it studiously ignores it
> >entirely.
>
notion of
> god and did so at length over its tenure in India.
well, yes and no. afaik, at no stage did mainstream indian buddhism
expressly state that "there was no creator, and we know that for a
fact". but your point is well taken that indian buddhism *did* (more
so than in countries where the religious "competition" did not revolve
around creator-god-centric beliefs) have to engage and refute the
brahmanist/hindu notion of such a being. again, afaik, it never did so
by disowning the buddha's statement that this was a "question that
tends not towards edification"; rather, in perfect keeping with dharma,
it was emphasised that the buddha taught the *irrelevance* of a creator
god, which is most certainly true - thereby denying the
brahmanist/hindu *package* notion of a creator god that manifests into
(as avatars) and otherwise just generally intervenes in the affairs of
his creation.
chino...@my-deja.com
ez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> chino...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > it is right there in the sutras. are you saying you can channel the
> > buddha and he told you the sutras misquote him? what authority do
you
> > have for your bizarre claim?
>
actually, where we both agree is that the buddha did not *affirm* the
existence of a creator god.
> isn't it appropriate that you refer him to the sutra texts that
support
> your position? At this point, all you have done is toss a couple of
> snide comments at Bruce, and assert that "it is right there in the
> sutras" ... well, which ones? Given Bruce's comments, it appears that
> he is unfamiliar with the texts upon which you base your position. It
> would be the skillful and compassionate thing to clear up his alleged
> ignorance ... can you?
>
> So far, it looks to me that Bruce has made an affective case for the
> position that the Buddha DID address the question whether there was a
> Creator, and answered it in the negative. He's cited Buddhist
> scripture. You haven't. Your turn!
fine. see my reply to bruce posted imminently...
> Ezra
ez...@my-deja.com
I do. So I'll correct your "corrections" ....
> It's not Baha'i, it's the Baha'i Faith.
In Baha'i usage. But non-Baha'is are not bound by the rules set down
by your organization. For example, we don't have to use your fussy and
ridiculous system of transliterating Arabic and Persian.
Baha'i means "of Baha". It can, therefore, be used as an adjective to
modify a noun ... hence, "Baha'i Prayers," "Baha'i institutions,"
"Baha'i books," "Baha'i jewelery". That is how I used the term in my
post. Double-check it.
> It's not Bahaiism, it's the Baha'i Faith.
Baha'is insist on this, but it is a common convention for non-Baha'i
scholars to use the designations Bahaiism and Babism (or Babiism) to
designate the religions. Baha'is may not like it, but that's the way
it is. I know it bugs you folks. That's part of the reason I use it.
It helps to highlight how obsessed Baha'is are with controlling
discourse about all things related to their religion... even down to
the name. Unlike the distinction between "Islam" and "Muhammedanism",
little rides on the distinction between "Baha'i Faith" (I believe it is
Baha'iat ... "Baha'iism" ... in Persian!) and "Baha'iism" except the
petty concerns of Baha'i apologists.
> A person is a Baha'i, as a person is a Muslim.
Yes, I know. See my post, where I used the term this way.
> I was wondering, do a lot of Baha'is post attacks on other religions
to
> other religious newsgroups?
Not that I know of. I don't belong to another religion, and I am not
here to seek converts. I was just checking out the group and found
several people engaged in debates I found interesting. Like Bruce, I
am most concerned to address the ways Baha'is distort and denigrated
the teachings of other religions in their published texts and in their
public discourse.
Would you care to offer something more substantive than petty
assertions about terminology the next time?