Should we even try describe?

[stvdv]

But the spiritual life is within us, if we describe God or a Buddha wrongly, isnt that actually wrong according to the teaching?

IMHO:
We can practise RF rule #8, starting our posts with IMHO. This way we realize it's just our opinion. We can also add the quote from the wise "The truth can never be conveyed by words". Nowadays people are getting brainwashed on daily basis with bad stuff. I see this as an "anti-dote". If done in a humble way, then I have the feeling it is not bad. Of course ideally it would be to first become Self Realized. But then we have "In silence the truth is conveyed".

 

[stvdv]

To become a Buddha/enlighten being take more than a lifetime (according to Buddha and his teaching) But yes we should not stop trying

Humility is a good step. As is Self Effort. Good thread, I like this.

 

[wizanda]

IMHO:
We can practise RF rule #8, starting our posts with IMHO.

It doesn't work or even adding it at the end with an innocent angel smile doesn't help.

As just pointing out, there are always contrary reactions when putting something forward in a public arena, someone is bound to be offended in some way.

In my opinion.

 

[stvdv]

It doesn't work or even adding it at the end with an innocent angel smile doesn't help.

As just pointing out, there are always contrary reactions when putting something forward in a public arena, someone is bound to be offended in some way.

In my opinion.

IMHO
That is true. But that is mostly misunderstanding, especially when using IMHO.
If they still get offended, that means they need to study RF Rule #8 a little more AND do some introspection

I use things as a challenge to improve myself, also when I get offended
Always first I check "what did I do wrong"? Then, if I was not wrong, I might explain to them or...

So being offended is part of the learning process
IMHO

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since we human beings can not truly understand what God or a Buddha is. Should we even try describing them with our own human words?

Can we even give them respect if we try describing them to other human beings when we do not fully understand God or Buddha?

I don't know. Unlike god, The Buddha didn't claim he is all knowing. So, perfection isn't a barrier between ourselves and enlightenment. I would assume understanding The Buddha is understanding your own mind through practice. I don't see it as mystical like abrahamic religions.

I guess.

 

[metis]

Two things, with one of them is that the Buddha claimed "full enlightenment", which seemingly implies all-knowing and, second, God asks questions in the Tanakh, which seems to suggest He was not all-knowing, such as when he said he didn't know that Saul would turn out the be the jerk he became.

However, since I'm not literalistically inclined, I guess yas can't take me too seriously.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Since we human beings can not truly understand what God or a Buddha is. Should we even try describing them with our own human words?

Can we even give them respect if we try describing them to other human beings when we do not fully understand God or Buddha?

All we can know of God, is the chosen 'Self of God' amongst us. That is Gods Messengers.

When we describe them it is in attributes, as the Essence of God, the giver of the Spirit that is the Messengers, can not be known.

The divine Messengers also do not know the Essence of God.

"....Assuming the truth of this hypothesis, “attainment unto the divine Presence” is in this sense obviously possible to no one, inasmuch as this revelation is confined to the innermost Essence, unto which no man can attain. “The way is barred, and all seeking rejected.” The minds of the favourites of heaven, however high they soar, can never attain this station, how much less the understanding of obscured and limited minds...." Baha'u'llah - Kitab-i-iqan

I see Buddha as one of the chosen 'Self of God' amongst us.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't know. Unlike god, The Buddha didn't claim he is all knowing. So, perfection isn't a barrier between ourselves and enlightenment. I would assume understanding The Buddha is understanding your own mind through practice. I don't see it as mystical like abrahamic religions.

I guess.

I see the Buddha knew he could not know the Essence of God. I see the Buddha knew true life in this world is in living the attributes, knowing we are more then self.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Two things, with one of them is that the Buddha claimed "full enlightenment", which seemingly implies all-knowing and, second, God asks questions in the Tanakh, which seems to suggest He was not all-knowing, such as when he said he didn't know that Saul would turn out the be the jerk he became.

However, since I'm not literalistically inclined, I guess yas can't take me too seriously.

It has been written He who knows his own self has known God. Thus I see that is the Buddha's enlightenment.

Baha'u'llah has a tablet on this subject, this is and extract (Provisional Translation)

"...It is clear and evident that when the veils that conceal the realities of the manifestations of the Names and Attributes of God, nay of all created things visible or invisible, have been rent asunder, nothing except the Sign of God will remain — a sign which He, Himself hath placed within these realities. This sign will endure as long as is the wish of the Lord thy god, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. If such be the blessings conferred on all created things, how superior must be the destiny of the true believer, whose existence and life are to be regarded as the originating purpose of all creation. Just as the conception of faith hath existed from the beginning that hath no beginning, and will endure till the end that hath no end, in like manner will the true believer eternally live and endure. His spirit will everlastingly circle round the Will of God. He will last as long as God, Himself, will last. He is revealed through the Revelation of God, and is hidden at His bidding. It is evident that the loftiest mansions in the Realm of Immortality have been ordained as the habitation of them that have truly believed in God and in His signs. Death can never invade that holy seat. Thus have We entrusted thee with the signs of Thy Lord, that thou mayest persevere in thy love for Him, and be of them that comprehend this truth..."

Link to full translation - He who knoweth his self hath known his Lord

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see the Buddha knew he could not know the Essence of God. I see the Buddha knew true life in this world is in living the attributes, knowing we are more then self.

Regards Tony

Eh. The Buddha rejected self in and of itself. There is no "self" to know the essence of god. Abrahamics believe in the eternal fixed more than, higher self. There is no such thing.

I can kinda sort a squeeze the Hindu gods in Buddhism since it's fully of Indian cosmology. But abrahamics god (not gods)?!

I can't do mind flips at the moment. Got to get back home.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Eh. The Buddha rejected self in and of itself. There is no "self"

I see that is enlightenment.

RegardsTony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see that is enlightenment.

RegardsTony

How so? There's no higher self. No soul to achieve anything. No god to give wisdom. No wisdom as God. No spiritual state of being from God. Enlightenment has no source. No creation and no destination.

Who is Buddha to you without these things?

 

[steveb1]

Since we human beings can not truly understand what God or a Buddha is. Should we even try describing them with our own human words?

Can we even give them respect if we try describing them to other human beings when we do not fully understand God or Buddha?

I think the original experience of God/Buddha, etc., is raw and undomesticated. But we have a need to interpret the original ineffable experience into human categories and therefore we fashion specialized terms to express that interpretation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How so? There's no higher self. No soul to achieve anything. No god to give wisdom. No wisdom as God. No spiritual state of being from God. Enlightenment has no source. No creation and no destination.

Who is Buddha to you without these things?

It is as you wish and choose to see it.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is as you wish and choose to see it.

Regards Tony

Tony, it's a question.

 

[74x12]

Since we human beings can not truly understand what God or a Buddha is. Should we even try describing them with our own human words?

Can we even give them respect if we try describing them to other human beings when we do not fully understand God or Buddha?

No you shouldn't try to describe God. I don't care about Buddha (no offense) but yeah it's pointless to describe God. God will give people the right words to describe Him; so there is no trying necessary. But anyway, the words used to describe God will be infinite. There is no end to God or just how great He really is. So that's why the revelations of God are endless.

 

[Howard Is]

The Buddha rejected self in and of itself. There is no "self" to know the essence of god.

Buddha rejected a perceptual error labelled as self.

Anatta does not translate as ‘no self’, it means ‘not self’.

Buddha said the momentary arisings of the sense of “I” were a false identification that gave rise to an illusion of a permanent self in the sense of ego, or a permanently exiting entity, but those momentary arisings are anatta.

You think you know what ignorance is, right ?

So I could say ‘there is no you to know anything’

But that would be a dumb annoying thing to say, wouldn’t it ?

What is it that knows anything ?

Maybe not a tiny pixie behind your eyes, but something...

 

[Phaedrus]

This reminds me of the common apologist statement god is beyond human comprehension, which ironically paints the theist in an illogical corner.

If god is beyond human comprehension, there would be no god in which to believe and about which to have subjective opinions. Something being beyond human comprehension means being incapable of imagining it exists whatsoever. Therefore, the man who conceptualizes and claims to understand god has done so merely from his imagination.

 

[Twilight Hue]

IMHO:
We can practise RF rule #8, starting our posts with IMHO. This way we realize it's just our opinion. We can also add the quote from the wise "The truth can never be conveyed by words". Nowadays people are getting brainwashed on daily basis with bad stuff. I see this as an "anti-dote". If done in a humble way, then I have the feeling it is not bad. Of course ideally it would be to first become Self Realized. But then we have "In silence the truth is conveyed".

"Thus have I heard"....

 

[Quagmire]

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The Tao that can be played on the harmonica, might be.
---Naykidape

Trans: all attempts to describe God have been incomplete but many of them have been beautiful.