Should we even try describe?

[TransmutingSoul]

How so?

The Buddha isn't god. How is Siddhartha your life?
(Scratches her head. Usually I hear this about god not a person)

I do not see it as you do.

It is as you wish and choose to see it.

Regards Tony

Regards Tony

 

[blü 2]

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 disrespect, but what's the attraction of worshiping something one hasn't a clue about? Can it be sufficient to represent such a being simply as a big fluffy mist whose only important attribute is being colored in a charming way? That's what you seem to be proposing, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No disrespect, but what's the attraction of worshiping something one hasn't a clue about? Can it be sufficient to represent such a being simply as a big fluffy mist whose only important attribute is being colored in a charming way? That's what you seem to be proposing, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

You do not offend me
I can not speak for others, but as a Buddhist, I do not worship Buddha or any other God But I do believe both Buddhas and Gods are real

 

[atanu]

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?

It is said the mind and word return from it. Mostly our effort at describing god to others may be tinged with ego and thus may be doomed at the outset. Similar, imo, is the status of a non believer. It is somewhat like an ant trying to describe an elephant that stands in front of it. Or it is similar to an ant asserting absence of an elephant while facing it.

But then what about true teachers, called sat guru, in Hindu tradition, or what about Buddha or Christ? Someone has to point the way to us. We must be thankful.

 

[atanu]

No disrespect, but what's the attraction of worshiping something one hasn't a clue about? Can it be sufficient to represent such a being simply as a big fluffy mist whose only important attribute is being colored in a charming way? That's what you seem to be proposing, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Suppose you are an ant and are facing a part of an elephant that is homogeneous to you. You feel that there is no elephant. But there may be a more experienced ant that has mapped the contour of an elephant and he tells you ‘Dude, there is a huge beast’.

Just saying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not see it as you do.



Regards Tony

I know. Doesn't mean there is no dialogue or what's the use of RF.

I honestly don't like comments on RF I can't talk about. It has no context and could be taken many ways.

Ifs an RF issue that's very annoying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

First of all, No I do not worship Buddha, only see him as my teacher (the teachings are my teacher now)
Sakyamuni was the first to reach enlightenment in the way he did it (to my knowledge) and he created the teaching we today call Buddhism (He called it Dharma/Dhamma) So Yes for those of us who follow his teaching we could become enlighten too, but I am not sure we can get to Tathagata level or only Arahant level. But both is a form of enlightenment "level"
I know not much about Mahayana Buddhism so i can not answer for them

Dharma is found everywhere, but I believe that every religion has its truth but we see it in different ways. So i try to not reject any religion or spiritual beliefs.

I'm busy but real quick, the Buddha wasn't the first. He had guru. I haven't read his life in a while. In the Buddha's Words, there are a good amount of suttas there.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm busy but real quick, the Buddha wasn't the first. He had guru. I haven't read his life in a while. In the Buddha's Words, there are a good amount of suttas there.

He was not the first Buddha, but he was the first to teach the dharma we today call Buddhism. But only a few Buddhas will ever come to teach the path in public as he did. Siddartha Gautama did have a totally of 3 teachers (as far as I am aware of) So he did cultivate himself up to the Tathagata level, But he was teaching already as an Arahant. But when he was teaching it was his own teaching,not a copy of his masters.

 

[blü 2]

Suppose you are an ant and are facing a part of an elephant that is homogeneous to you. You feel that there is no elephant. But there may be a more experienced ant that has mapped the contour of an elephant and he tells you ‘Dude, there is a huge beast’.

Just saying.

But having asked around, I'm left with the deep suspicion that there's no such ant and no such map, just the imaginings of many ants in many groups. Should it be otherwise, that's when it'd get interesting ─ a test to tell whether any particular real entity is a god or not.

 

[atanu]

But having asked around, I'm left with the deep suspicion that there's no such ant and no such map, just the imaginings of many ants in many groups. Should it be otherwise, that's when it'd get interesting ─ a test to tell whether any particular real entity is a god or not.

Why suspicion?

 

[Howard Is]

Someone has to point the way to us. We must be thankful.

I don’t entirely agree with that.
There are all sorts of innate potentials in a human being, and those potentials may manifest naturally in my opinion.

When you look closely, most of the idealist traditions, and realist traditions such as Buddhism, have an important core concept, which is that Brahman for example in Hinduism, or the Buddha nature in Buddhism, is already present, already fundamental to the nature of experience.

It’s like becoming a musician. The musical impulse is already present, and may develop with or without a teacher.

The irony here is that many musicians, like yogis or devotees, become obsessed with the learning, the process, ‘getting it right’, which can prevent renouncing constant rehearsal and actually playing spontaneously and authentically.

 

[atanu]

I don’t entirely agree with that.
There are all sorts of innate potentials in a human being, and those potentials May manifest naturally in my opinion.

When you look closely, most of the idealist traditions, and realist traditions such as Buddhism, have an important core concept, which is that Brahman for example in Hinduism, or the Buddha nature in Buddhism, is already present, already fundamental to the nature of experience.

It’s like becoming a musician. The musical impulse is already present, and may develop with or without a teacher.

The irony here is that many musicians, like yogis or devotees, become obsessed with the learning, the process, ‘getting it right’, which can prevent renouncing constant rehearsal and actually playing spontaneously and authentically.

I agree but not fully. Guru tattva is as unborn as nibbana is and that tattva manifests from time to time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

He was not the first Buddha, but he was the first to teach the dharma we today call Buddhism. But only a few Buddhas will ever come to teach the path in public as he did. Siddhartha Gautama did have a totally of 3 teachers (as far as I am aware of) So he did cultivate himself up to the Tathagata level, But he was teaching already as an Arahant. But when he was teaching it was his own teaching,not a copy of his masters.

I don't know how else The Buddha is different than his masters since all are interconnected. I do know The Buddha was the first to teach to non-monastics. I don't see The Buddha/the person above all other people. When I was at the temple, they venerated his practice. We read some suttas but mostly we practiced, prayed, meditated, things like that. We received blessings from "The Buddhi Mind" type of thing. I think the venerating The Buddha, the person, is more traditional. The Practice is life itself.

As for the words, definitions, and Sanskrit I'm not familiar. Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas and https://suttacentral.net/ (which you may like sense they have chat room for Theravada practitioners. There is a monk who helped built the site. He's from the monastery I want to go by a couple hours from me. I'll go between classes since I have the means.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't know how else The Buddha is different than his masters since all are interconnected. I do know The Buddha was the first to teach to non-monastics. I don't see The Buddha/the person above all other people. When I was at the temple, they venerated his practice. We read some suttas but mostly we practiced, prayed, meditated, things like that. We received blessings from "The Buddhi Mind" type of thing. I think the venerating The Buddha, the person, is more traditional. The Practice is life itself.

As for the words, definitions, and Sanskrit I'm not familiar. Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas and https://suttacentral.net/ (which you may like sense they have chat room for Theravada practitioners. There is a monk who helped built the site. He's from the monastery I want to go by a couple hours from me. I'll go between classes since I have the means.

I used suttracental webside a lot before so i know about the content
I think it is important to focus on the practice of dharma instead of on the buddha But since he is my teacher i seem him as that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I used suttracental webside a lot before so i know about the content
I think it is important to focus on the practice of dharma instead of on the buddha But since he is my teacher i seem him as that.

I honestly don't understand someone being a teacher that isn't here. Usually, gurus etc work with you one to one. I know it's an abrahamic thing that "god or jesus" teaches one to know scripture. I'm not sure how it works with Dharma. I know Dharmic practitioners give veneration to The Buddha and Dharma but as for him being a guide who passed away or someone alive to help out, I'm not sure if both abrahamic and eastern agree to that type of communications.

I know it's contrary to "Dharmic" logic, but without some form of study, I have no context of practice. Without practice, study is academic. There is room for study in line with practice just not in place of.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I honestly don't understand someone being a teacher that isn't here. Usually, gurus etc work with you one to one. I know it's an abrahamic thing that "god or jesus" teaches one to know scripture. I'm not sure how it works with Dharma. I know Dharmic practitioners give veneration to The Buddha and Dharma but as for him being a guide who passed away or someone alive to help out, I'm not sure if both abrahamic and eastern agree to that type of communications.

I know it's contrary to "Dharmic" logic, but without some form of study, I have no context of practice. Without practice, study is academic. There is room for study in line with practice just not in place of.

The suttas are the teaching that Buddha gave (pluss some that was added later).
Why do i still see Buddha as the teacher? Because he is the founder of the Buddhist cultivation path. His energy is still in the text in suttas. But the most important is my own cultivation of mind and body

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The suttas are the teaching that Buddha gave (pluss some that was added later).
Why do i still see Buddha as the teacher? Because he is the founder of the Buddhist cultivation path. His energy is still in the text in suttas. But the most important is my own cultivation of mind and body

I've honestly never understand that with material text and spiritual energy. Even bowing to The Buddha statue as with others felt weird. It's more I see The Buddha more as an equal rather than someone above me. Then, even saying that, makes it sound like The Buddha is alive someone watching over me. I'm used to the language in Christianity but not in Buddhism.

Interesting nonetheless.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I know. Doesn't mean there is no dialogue or what's the use of RF.

I honestly don't like comments on RF I can't talk about. It has no context and could be taken many ways.

Ifs an RF issue that's very annoying.

I did it want to go back to the path walked in another thread.

You are aware that for Me the Baha'i writings have confirmed Buddha is a Messenger from God. As such I see in the writings things others do not consider.

Also to me, Baha'u'llah and Buddha are One and their Messages merge. I see they are to us, refracted light waves from the same source of light.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I agree but not fully. Guru tattva is as unborn as nibbana is and that tattva manifests from time to time.

I see that when the Bible talks about a Virgin birth and having to be born again, those recorded words are explaining the same concepts as being unborn, in a different frame of reference.

I wonder if the day when East meets West may not be far away?

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I did it want to go back to the path walked in another thread.

You are aware that for Me the Baha'i writings have confirmed Buddha is a Messenger from God. As such I see in the writings things others do not consider.

Also to me, Baha'u'llah and Buddha are One and their Messages merge. I see they are to us, refracted light waves from the same source of light.

Regards Tony

When you say Buddha is life, what do you mean?